This user may have left Wikipedia. Groggy Dice has not edited Wikipediasince 12 September 2009. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, Groggy Dice, andwelcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being aWikipedian! Pleasesign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check outWikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  —Fingers-of-Pyrex14:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated in your edit summary that you would oppose theAfD, so I thought it would be polite to notify you.--KchaseT07:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably enter your opposition atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Willis, so that others will see it. Easy enough to copy and paste. I'll do so if you don't in the next few minutes (if you've turned in for the night).--KchaseT07:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up--Guess it doesn't pay to plan ahead. This will reach far more if anyone starts doing characters and such. Shrug- I'm on break. //FrankB23:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.Instead of deleting Carla's song, could we not mention both movies?Atavi20:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I thing it would be a bad idea. What grounds would there be for denying anyone else who wanted to add a film or documentary to that section? Or books, etc. In fact, I considered deleting Nicaraguan Sign Language while I was there, I think its connection to the Sandinistas is tangential. I also thought about whether Carlos Mejia Godoy should be there, but he at least has some merit as a troubador of the Revolution. --Groggy Dice22:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really say you are wrong. There would be no grounds to deny adding a film, documentary or book. In my opinion, that would not be a bad thing; I have seen several articles mention related films etc. But if you strongly disagree, I see no reason to push forward with it.Atavi08:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It occured to me that, as far as the "See also" part goes you are absolutely right. But, would you object if I created a special section about films, books, etc?Atavi08:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the best bet might be to create a new List page of such works, then link to the "List of..." page from See also. --Groggy Dice09:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I might do that in time.Atavi11:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been watching it very well. If you have no objections I would like to copy your comments from my talk page to the AfD talk page and leave a note for the closing admin. You've laid them out well and they shoud be somewhere that can be easily seen.CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)06:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.CambridgeBayWeather(Talk)07:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were not ironic. I know of these groups. It is possible that eventually, William Bradford will become notable, but I doubt it. I do not want to dissuade you from your decision tokeep the article, that is, after all, your judgement of the situation. I based my decision todelete based onAnita Hill. She is completely non-notable, except for theClarence Thomas hearings. What makes Anita Hill notable is that you can say her name, and peopleknow who you are talking about. Bradford has nowhere near the name recognition of Hill, even among academics. There are certain people and groups who would like to change that, but it hasn't happened yet. I searched throughThe Chronicle of Higher Education, which is the best bet forreal news about Bradford among academics. There have been 2 articles that mention him in passing, and one that is about him (two in 2005, one in 2004). In your opinion, if that is enough for notability, then he is notable. Within two years, noone will remember his name -- even in academic circles; unlike Anita Hill. As an aside, I had about the same coverage some time ago for a different (and more positive) reason. In no way did that make me notable, and people soon forgot my name. I expect the same for Bradford. I wish more people spent time with these AfDs, and I appreciate your digging as much as you have. In the same way, some of us have spent considerable time on this even if we come up with a different decision.Ted/20:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of your excellent and successful attempt to provide reliable sources for the William Bradford article, proving his notability and substantiating the article's claims, I have changed my "vote" from a weak delete to a keep. I am seriously impressed by the quality and quantity of your work. I am still unwilling to consider FrontPageMag.com a reliable sourcein general, but for the purposes of this article is apropos.Captainktainer *Talk21:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here. I'll see if being a good samaritan qualifies for a Barnstar. Best! //FrankB05:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at the current version of theLiza Wright article and make any improvements that seem appropriate? I tried to expand it. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk |contribs)04:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Groggy... you recently removed the prod at the above article, saying the subject was notable. That is fine, but I am curious as towhy you find the subject notable?Blueboar18:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it up on AFD, if you want to comment.Night Gyr (talk/Oy)04:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the articleLiza Wright for deletion under theArticles for deletion process. I am notifying you because of your previous involvement in the editing of this article. I do not feel thatLiza Wright satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and I have explained why in the nomination space (seeWhat Wikipedia is not andDeletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liza Wright. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content ofLiza Wright during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion.GringoInChile17:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it at your request. You might like to work on the article forWP:NPOV andWP:V.Tyrenius21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just saw your rationale for upgrading your support to strong on my RfA. I had just read the latest oppose votes and while I had thus far been taking the punches rather well, I felt today a strong tingle of discouragement at the absurdity of it all (I guess I'm just having a bad day). So your extra support was particularly appreciated. Cheers,Pascal.Tesson22:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciatedhere page. Thankyou. --Bob16:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can stop adding citations at the AfD - I have withdrawn it (for now)... what would help is to add material to the article itself. ThanksBlueboar01:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you for tactfully and civilly pointing out that I was talking complete bollocks. All the best!Angus McLellan(Talk)22:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey..you recently removed the prod at the above article saying the article has a "long history and several editors". I was wonder how edits by the same FEW people count has that. Additionally, if you don't want it deleted should you not write on the discussion and not just remove the prod?

I perhaps should have noted in my PROD nomination that the category "Bahraini People" is a much better method of tracking Bahrainis that maintaining a list. It seems that many lists are going that way. Perhaps you may reconsider.Maustrauser21:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GroggyDice: Thanks for your feedback; there is a more detailed response atthe page. I was starting to wonder if anyone was paying attention.

I like your ideas regarding both the specific article revisions and the general changes to approach. Do you think is worth the effort to maintain a list of importance guidelines? I could create a subpage for that purpose so maintenance would not require editing a talk page (although editing talk pages is not explicitely against wiki-policy)?

Thanks again, and happy editing :-)SRICE_{13 (TALK |EDITS)}00:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groggy Dice,

No problem on editing out the article from Dyestat. Actually, that was already part of the Jordan Hasay entry when I started editing yesterday. All I did as far as the article was to put a link to the original. I was kind of surprised to find it here.

fizbin

I read the article as an outside observer, and gave my opinion. Mine was not the only deletion vote, and the only reason it was "no consensus" was because the nominationwas withdrawn. That's a very different story than the one you're telling now.MSJapan20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you think I misrepresented what happened in that AfD, it was not my intention to leave a misleading impression. I never claimed to have any special evidence that you were anything other than an outside observer. Yes, you were not the only deletion vote (or !vote), but the three of you accounted for three of the four original delete votes. And I did allude to the fact that Blueboar withdrew his nomination. I'm not sure how my "story" is "different" from this. --Groggy DiceT |C22:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Groggy... Nothing serious... but I just want to register a slight objection to your labeling ALR, MSJapan and me as "the Masonic Three" (or whatever it was you called us) It sounds as if we are in collusion or a voting cabal or something. I can assure you that we don't always edit in lock step.  :>)

That said, thank you for your kind words about my conduct at the Carr AfD. I do try to be reasonable in every dispute I am involved with... and since my major reason for puting that article up for AfD was the lack of sources, and a frustration over the lack of response to my repeated calls for such sources, it was only right to withdraw the nom to give you time to add some once you expressed an interest in doing so. Many contentious AfD's could be resolved amicably if more people were willing to compromise and discuss. What is sad is that it often takes an AfD to get people to that point.Blueboar19:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion tag was removed by the original author, not an admin. I have put the tage back and suggest that it stay in place until the discussion has completed as perWikipedia:Proposed deletion. --Walter Görlitz16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was a professor right? Why did he need to make up a fake language for his book? Was he related toJohn Ruskin?Chivista19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about JRR Tolkien? Despite my userbox, I'm afraid my Tolkien phase was many years ago, closer to the Rankin Bass era than the Peter Jackson era. He was a professor, but I don't know why he created original languages for Middle Earth. It may have something to do with his interest in linguistics, and his desire to flesh out the details of his setting. I don't know how or if he he might be related to John Ruskin. --Groggy DiceT |C20:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll be quite interested in this:Talk:Historical_Eastern_Germany#Requested_move. --Hrödberäht(gespräch)04:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed that you have voted yes for the Category: Malayalee_Americans. There is now a vote started by Bakasuprman to delete and merge the Category: Tamil_Americans to Indian Americans and Sri Lankan Americans. This negative action will further divide the Tamils into either Indian or Sri Lankan. This is really uncalled for, and just a spitefull request by user Bakasuprman. So, please vote YES to keep the Category: Tamil Americanshere:

Also, if you could get others to vote yes, it would be appreciated. Thank you.

Wiki Raja

Hi! I've noticed you have contested a few articles that I had PRODed. A few of these I will put up for AFD such asK. K. Dodds who you argued had appeared in minor roles in major releases. Indeed she did, but my concerns are twofold: She only appeared in minor roles. This concerns me in that some will argue that simply appearing (even without lines) in a major release is notable. I was in a major release as an extra and I'm in the final cut, but am I notable, of course not. Even with a few lines, I think it's stretchingWP:BIO. It should be noted that WP:BIO also includes the following criteria for actors:

• • Multiple features in credible magazines and newspapers.
  • A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following.
  • A credible independent biography.
  • Wide name recognition.
  • Commercial endorsements.

Which this bio doesn't meet. Indeed, the bios I have PRODed don't meet these criteria as well. My other concern is that for most of these folks there is a lack of biographical material on them besides a simple listing of credits. For many, the only real source is IMDB which is not considered a reliable source as it is based on submitted information that may or may not be checked.

Forgive my long-windedness, I simply wanted to give you a good explanation for my actions with PROD. It is nice to know someone is looking over my shoulder and I'm sure we'll be contesting PRODs in the future. Take care!*Exeunt* Ganymead |Dialogue?05:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've put up Karen Lamm and Kelsey Mulrooney for AfD already, But I wasn't the one who de-prodded them, and I looked at them, which goes to show that there are people more inclusionist than me. I think I even endorsed one or two of your prods. As for K.K. Dodds specifically, remember that PROD is a process foruncontested deletions. Some of my deprods are for articles that I think would easily pass AfD, but sometimes I deprod if the article seems contestable. Dodds might or might not survive AfD - I myself noted it was a "close call" - but I can see it being contested. She might not be getting lead roles, but she seemes to be more than an extra - her parts generally have names, not just "secretary" or "nurse." Also, she apparently has some stage roles that aren't in the article yet.

As for using IMDB, it may be user-submitted, but the information is generally accurate. It does commit sins of omission - it says that Jack Klugman only appeared in 28 of Quincy's 147 episodes!

I also noticed that you have reprodded some articles, saying they had been deprodded "without proper justification." If you reviewWP:PROD#Conflicts, you will see that it says that you are not supposed to reprod, even if the tag is removed without a reason or by the creator. Again, PROD is not for any article you think ought to be deleted, but those articles whose deletion you believe would not becontested. Allowing the original prodder to decide whether he found the reasoning for a deprod to be sufficient or "proper" would essentially give him veto power over deprodding. As for the reason that was given in these cases, "seems notable" may be vague, but note that many prods give something like "seems nn" as their reason, which is just as vague. --Groggy DiceT |C17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I happened upon them while going through the uncategorized pages cue and the manner in which one editor had been adding them to wikipedia made me suspicious. I honestly thought they were nothing but SPAM bios. I will admit that my PRODing them was a little haphazard, but the sloppy nature of the articles (the lists of books without proper capitalization, the trivial nature of the information) didn't impress me. Since it appears as thought I was tagging articles that should stay I'm glad other editors found that my PRODs weren't the right choice and removed them. As for tagging them first for cleanup, I find that the threat of deletion if often the only way to get anyone to properly source an article. Not that that it always works. For example,Patricia Matthews, who you de-PRODed saying that she was a 'popular romance author' remains a completely unreferenced article. Technically, being a 'popular romance author' doesn't pass the criteria for inclusion onWP:BIO. I will assume her popularity means that she has been written up in independent and verifiable sources, and that eventually those sources will be added to her article. Thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention. Happy wikipedia-ing.Cornell Rockey14:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply Well, I guess every day you do learn something. Thanks for the FYI, I'll try to remember that. I do find myself assuming often that en.wikipedia contributors are always native speakers, but that isn't nearly always the case.Cornell Rockey19:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for starting this article; I thought I'd let you know I added a few questions to itsdiscussion page the other week. I don't know if you know anything more about him, or have any interest, but thought it never hurts to ask. All Best:)58.107.15.24514:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular contributor toWP:DSI, I was hoping you could weigh in on the category discussions going on related to the page. There are in factquite a few, and are somewhat stagnant at the moment.Bakaman18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see if it sticks. It is a good idea as an approach to keeping this relevant topic within theCold War template (and similar spots) while not getting coverage out of proportion. I, for example, tend to get irritated when theSalvadoran civil war is excised completely from such topics, as it's significant in its own right, yet I realize it doesn't have as major a role as some other topics. Bringing them all together as a common grouping seems like a workable solution as well as being informative and drawn from the existing published material on the topic, as opposed tooriginal research.Lawikitejana01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. See that the CentAm Crisis is a specialty of yours. I've worked on, or in some cases created, various articles on topics related to the Salvadoran civil war; these are listed on my user page if you're interested. If you speak Spanish, you might check out the articles in that Wikipedia as well — they're even MORE prone toPOV issues.Lawikitejana01:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my great plesure that someone have a diffrent opinon about notability for Fudokan as a style in the world of Martial ArtistsSnake BGD08:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you are active in the BattleTech articles here at Wikipedia. I've started a proposal for a Battletech Wikiproject. If you are interested please check out my proposal at the Battletech main article'stalk page. Thanks alot.NeoFreak05:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was an error. It should have been a keep, so I re-opened the debate and leave it for someone else to close. Please accept my apologies. -Best regards,Mailer Diablo10:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this barnstar for your great work on Wikipedia!(talk)14:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) --Groggy DiceT |C14:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored restored the Abby Abadi article and userfied it toUser:Groggy Dice/Abby Abadi. Happy editing. I strongly urge you to come toWP:DRV, or else have the edited version reviewed by an admin or other experienced and uninviolved editor, before moving this back into the mainspace. I also advise you to have all your ducks in a row, with sources clearly indicating notability in the article. But it is now up to you and whoever may choose to assist you.DES^(talk)19:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it. Itis, I admit, a confusing situation.Daniel Case14:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		MyRFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating inHammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore.Ten Pound Hammer •(((Broken clamshells •Otter chirps)))17:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your edits toThe Sleepover Club, yup, I shouldn't have reverted it, but you removed a sizable chunk of material (over 2 Kb) without actually mentioning it in the edit summary - always suspicious. Might I suggest that you get into the habit of making more detailed summary comments? Thank you,01:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree with your evaluation of the notability of the subject, I am not quite sure that your comment "I don't think Theresa Knott is fully equipped to appreciate the notability of Playboy Playmates. " was appropriate--and if you do not understand why, please email me. I suggest that you strike it. Just some friendly advice.DGG (talk)06:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... At this point it's been up for most of a day without causing a firestorm, so my instinct is to leave it up unless someone else finds it problematic. In which case, I'll remove (not strikethrough) it. That's assuming that your advice is based on general caution. If there is some particular reason to believe that Theresa Knott might feel personally hurt, offended, or singled out if she saw it, I'd remove it immediately. --Groggy DiceT |C16:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your Babylon 5 stub template. Wouldn't it be cool if it had a picture of Kosh and said something like "Reticence is for Vorlons. Please expand this article."? -Skaraoke23:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a policy against using fair use images in stub templates, so a picture of Kosh is probably out. Even show logos have been deemed inadmissible. As for the text, it would probably be considered clever on a B5 wiki, but I doubt it would fly here on Wikipedia. The principle is that Wikipedia is a general audience encyclopedia, including those who don't know what Vorlons are, even if it's hard to see how someone who hadn't heard of Vorlons would be able to meaningfully expand a stub. However, beyond setting up the stub, I really have no plans to do anything further with it, nor do I consider myself the WP:OWNer of the template, so if you have ideas about things to do with it, you should probably post them on the template's talk page, so that other interested editors can see them and comment. --Groggy DiceT |C00:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for supportingmy RfA, which passed 63 to 1. I hope that I am doing a good job so far.Bearian21:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Groggy Dice! Thank you for your support inmy RfA. It was a success, and I look forward to getting started!Hiberniantears18:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you weigh in on at least two articles regarding this, so you may want to help reach a final consensus here:deletion review.Gamer8319:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aproposed deletion template has been added to the articleDuchy of Andurien, suggesting that it be deleted according to theproposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia'scriteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" andWikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or onits talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through theproposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of thespeedy deletion criteria or it can be sent toArticles for Deletion, where it may be deleted ifconsensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add{{db-author}} to the top ofDuchy of Andurien.Judgesurreal777 (talk)23:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please seeTalk:BattleTech#Comstar.3F.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}05:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	Thanks!
So, yeah, you know how these work... »»»» Thank you very much for your support inmy recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of(75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always!Hersfold(t/a/c)20:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[reply]

Thanks for your lucid comments on the Contras. A complex topic. We needed the balance and effort particularly after the extreme recent reversion to a blatantly biased article.Student7 (talk)00:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war. Note that thethree-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate thethree-revert rule. If you continue,you may beblocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains aconsensus among editors. If necessary, pursuedispute resolution. ·01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need some statement from you and anonymous (I'm leaving the same note to him) in the discussion page that (a suggested list):

1. some agreement as to what will be done to statements you diagree with when the article is unlocked. My suggestion is to give the other guy a day to supply references, then flag them. Then wait a week or so and delete them.
2. reversions won't occur when the article is unlocked. That you will respect his edits even if you don't agree with them,
3. that changes will be discussed.
4. that an attempt will be made to avoid changing each other's statements.
5. that sections will be changed one at a time so the rest of us can appreciate what is going on. (And considering, polishing a section a day is probably better than having it get to this state. It won't take that long).
6. Whether to keep or lose Brown or Kagan as references

We need you two guys since you seem to be the only ones with this whole article in your head. And we need the difference of opinion to get a good article.

What we don't need is disarray! :)

It doesn't have to be my list, above, but it needs to be something on the discussion page that indicates that you guys can function as a "team" however you may disagree with each other over the facts.Student7 (talk)12:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been listed as a party on the above request for mediation. Please go to the aboce page and indicate whether or not you are happy to proceed. Regards,Ryan Postlethwaite13:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chimba/Elchimba indicated on my page that he wants to join the mediation....as a mediator! I've forgotten why I asked him except I think you suggested it. Can you refresh my obviously bad memory?Student7 (talk)11:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

???? I've never even heard of the guy!--Groggy DiceT |C19:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good!Student7 (talk)01:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I figured out what happened. When you went to Jpineda's talk page, the only item on it was a welcome template from SqueakBox. Somehow you ended up adding your comments to the welcome template rather than to Jpineda's page. Elchimba is one of the users who received a welcome from SB, and through transclusion, your comments addressed to Jpineda were showing on his talk page. So it appeared you were inviting him to join. Alfredo Lago also got a welcome from SB in the past couple of days, and had the same misunderstanding. --Groggy DiceT |C02:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to put you to all that work! I'm glad you figured it out! I thought I was going nuts for awhile since Isaw the message (on the wrong page)! Then later, it appeared to be gone (and no history either!).Student7 (talk)12:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARequest for Mediation to which you were are a party has beenaccepted. You can find more information on the case subpage,Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Contras. For the Mediation Committee,Daniel (talk)09:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you pop over to the above page and state whether or not you acceptDweller (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) as the mediator of the case?Ryan Postlethwaite15:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing. Please read my opening comments atthe mediation workspace and then keep an eye on that page for further developments. Many thanks. --Dweller (talk)09:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help withNicaragua Was Our Home‎. The article is now up to par. The other person involved seems to have a problem with one Unification Church member's editing on creationism/intelligent design/evolution articles and is tagging UC articles to put pressure on him. (That's how it seems to me, I could be wrong however.)Steve Dufour (talk)19:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to know that I went back to quadells edit before the block expired. I realize that I may have acted to soon and I apologize. I agreed to the mediation and I should have been more patient. Even though we never specifically agreed to it I realize that there was a sorta informal truce that I should have honored. I agree we should wait for the mediation committee to make there decision before we start editing again. I will make no further edits until then.annoynmous00:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic, but under the terms I need to operate with, I can't really do too much. SeeWikipedia:Mediation#What_mediators_are_not, point 5.

I'm hamstrung because two of the parties are not responding at the mediation talk page. I'll nudge them again, but we'll then have to consider progressing without them. --Dweller (talk)10:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're off and running for real now. Sections dealing with 2 of the 5 issues are now posted. Please read carefully and respond appropriately. Thanks so much for being part of this process. --Dweller (talk)15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No rushing First off, I am glad you alerted me - don't think it rude at all. I added the legendwithin the image itself using MS Paint and changed the font size of the title with it as well. The legendbelow the image is simple wiki markup, which you apparently understand. Personally, it doesn't seem necessary or even useful to have it in the image anymore, so it makes more sense to simply delete it. As you point out, it's actually virtually identical to the numbers from Q1, so go ahead and simply delete it if you want and re-upload the image as just a pie chart and title.

As far as saving a copy of the image, the old one will still be there if you upload a new one, so go for it. I don't recall manipulating the URL so I don't know why "&chl=Internet+Explorer|Firefox|Safari|Opera|Netscape|Other" didn't appear. I think it would be great if this was an SVG, but my understanding of SVG is poor at best, so I cannot do it myself and yes, MS Paint won't help me. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯22:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I've placed a copy of the Scarlett McAlister article atUser:Groggy Dice/Scarlett for you, as requested.Tony Fox(arf!)20:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check I've faithfully reproduced your issues and respond to my initial questions. Thanks. --Dweller (talk)15:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for adeletion review ofUser:C.m.jones/Wikipedia:I bid you adieu. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.Martinp (talk)12:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm sorry, I seem to have inadvertently delayed the Mediation. I'll pick this up now. --Dweller (talk)10:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond toAnnoynmous' post. I'm pretty sure I "know" you well enough that the following words are unnecessary, but just in case, please remain cool and civil even if you disagree vehemently with what he's posted, and respond to the issues raised as specifically as possible. --Dweller (talk)11:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Groggy Dice! Thank you for your contributions. I am abot alerting you that3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Thebiographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensureverifiability, all biographies should be based onreliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current170 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the{{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Sigifredo Ochoa -Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL
2. Fernando Agüero -Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL
3. José Francisco Cardenal -Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk)05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HiGroggy dice, I've deletedSigifredo Ochoa as an unsourced negative BLP, happy to restore if you can provide reliable sources for the contentious bits. CheersϢereSpielChequers15:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articleFernando Agüero has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. Thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Cumbriangirl (talk)10:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articleFree Rasalhague Republic is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Rasalhague Republic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.D O N D E groovily Talk to me05:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum fiction (2nd nomination). Ronhjones  ^(Talk)23:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. TheWikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/IrelandWikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge andWikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much likeWikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the currentWikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.}00:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of theWomen in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleThe Succession Wars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Succession Wars until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}05:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Babylon 5 stubs has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you. -OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』16:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery
• Wikipedians who opt out of template messages