User talk:Schetm/Archive

Hi Schetm! The E-Commerce Association Of India page should be restored from deletion because I'm working on this page and trying to make it more informatory and this page can prove useful for pages of various organisations as a reference, as it contains relevant information about the e-commerce association which is linked to various organisations. Kindly reconsider the article and restore it from deletion. Thank you. User talk:Shefali44 5:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Shefali44. I did not delete your page, but rather marked it for deletion. As such, I can't restore the article. You can request that it be undeleted at WP:Undeletion, but your request will probably be declined, as the Association probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's minimum standards for Notability. schetm (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, for sugession on Gandhi Teerth. Deletion is speedy way, we need to enhance WIKI. Matter copied from Gandhi Foundation web is about public place. Text published, I am authorise to publish about it, and not have any copywrite. Text copied is about Foundation and Place. For more info, there is Gandhi musuem - currently this place is visited by more than 500 guest's per day (includes indian and forigners) to study etc. Have gr8 browsing and keep it up. -- MahajanDeepak (MahajanDeepak|talk) Mahajandeepakv (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I am still learning how to use Wikipedia. this is my 4th or 5th hour of code (all together). I have been doing as you have instructed; with the contest and such. There is relatively a lot of editors contesting my page before I am done with it. That is why I am editing elsewhere then pasting. I understand the notability, and vandal vigilance. -All the more reason for me to work harder to create an article; which I feel is relevant to human history.

P.S. It's going to take me a good month to make a decent page, which means I will be testing it out like this for a month. Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you for your editing of the best 'kr-pedia around.Downejl (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Downejl. It seems like your article is in the testing stage. Be aware that the Wikipedia mainspace (i.e. article space) is not appropriate for testing. Instead, start the article at Articles for Creation. That way, you can work at your own pace, and not run the risk that your article be deleted. As it stands right now, your article, Edison Nation, doesn't even say why it is notable, and, as such, it cannot be included in any reputable encyclopedia, let alone Wikipedia. Good luck to you as you work on your article! schetm (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand how Wikipedia functions in regards to the editing process, however I do want to address the current page for deletion, Joshua Chit Tun. I did not create the article, I do agree there are too many links referenced to stubs etc., without second sources. However I assure you if one was diligent to do the research it is not hard to verify at all. In the end this is trivial and not my concern, I am confident in a few months there will be valid sources to meet your standards from a variety of news group. It is just prior to this I preferred to keep what I was working towards a private matter, nevertheless I am one to document all aspects of my life. Every page and every image for every year.

Wikipedia is not my thing. This was just to acknowledged your comment, as you are the expert on Wikipedia, however I will continue to do and your comments are well noted, my team will make sure that the news covers my experiences.

To conclude, I would appreciate it since you know how to navigate Wikipedia to work with the individual who created the article to improve it so in that regards it meets all standards.

Thank you.

- Joshua Chit Tun — Preceding unsigned comment added by JC2016 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Schetm, Downejl again. I just deleted the speedy deletion thing. I was trying to delete the code I put in, and deleted it all...so...Now I have my code saved, but not the speedy deletion (which I am not supposed to delete). ROCK-me-HARDPLACE

Article for creation! Makes sense... Appreciations! Downejl (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Schetm,

We are trying to create a page for our non profit organization. We received a notice of "marked for deletion". Much of the information (Mission, Vision, About) will come directly from our website which we own the copyright to. Please advise.

• Hello Afefoundation. Wikipedia guidelines advise against creating a page for your own company, person, or foundation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and guidelines require its articles to be neutral. That can be very difficult if someone affiliated with a foundation is writing the foundation's article. Please see Wikipedia:Autobiography for more information.
• Be advised that even if you own the material on your website, it cannot be copied and pasted onto Wikipedia without first going through the process described here.
• Be advised that your foundation, in spite of the good work that it may be doing, likely does not meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. This guideline is in place to ensure that there is a minimum standard for inclusion in Wikipedia.
• Be also advised that your username violates our username policy, found here. It will need to be changed, or you will be blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Good luck! schetm (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Schetm,

Thank you for the quick response. I will update my user name immediately. Could you please explain how organizations such as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation have a page? There are thousands of non-profits found on wiki- I'm confused as to how those exist and ours is not considered neutral? Also, I do not see how to change my username. I searched help but did not see direct instructions of how to change it.

• Hello Afefoundation. Just because the JDRF has an article doesn't mean all charitable foundations merit inclusion in Wikipedia. See this page for further explanation.
• The JDRF has an article (not a page, such as found on Facebook or an online directory) because it is considered to be a notable organization. That is, it passes the primary criteria for the notability of an organization. A Google search reveals that the AFE foundation doesn't even have one article written about it in any major publication, and has only one employee, per your own article. The JDRF has many employees, and many articles written about it outside Wikipedia. Please read our guidelines for notability of organizations at WP:ORG for an in-depth explanation. If you can supply in-depth sources found in publications unrelated to your foundation, it may merit inclusion in Wikipedia. If not, it frankly, does not.
• You may change your username here. Good luck! schetm (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Schetm,

A few things to mention. A google search that was done must have been quite small as we have several articles both scientific and mainstream that reference our organization. If the search is based solely on this page it is not complete as a great deal more information needs to be input---however---it would be futile to spend the time if it will quickly be deleted. As a donor to Wikimedia Foundation I am not only confused but saddened at the response that the research we are doing and the lives impacted by our organization don't "merit" inclusion. We are truly the only organization in the world supporting research into amniotic fluid embolism and advocating on behalf of those with this rare birth complication.

As requested, below are the links referencing our organization and the work we are doing. Additionally, I have many other articles but they are not available online as they are print articles. Please advise on if they are needed.

Front page of Houston Chronicle: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/health/article/Research-deepens-on-amniotic-fluid-embolism-4927414.php

Fox News Article Referencing AFE Foundation http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/11/24/rare-condition-kills-mom-but-newborn-survives/

ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/woman-survives-ill-effects-45-minutes-pulse/story?id=26808212

Pennlive: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/06/expecting_new_life_then_losing.html

American College of Obstetric and Gynecology: (link will take you to a CME paper which details our organization and our research efforts https://www.google.com/search?q=steven+clark%2C+MD+CME+on+Amniotic+Fluid+Embolism&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Baylor College of Medicine Press Release https://www.bcm.edu/news/obstetrics-and-gynecology/women-history-amniotic-fluid-embolism-study

Society of Maternal Fetal Medicine: https://www.smfm.org/members/support-groups

Healthline: LINK ON BLACKLIST

CrystalCRYSTAL JAVIA (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Schetm,

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is confused in news, reviews, and search engines by "YOTO". YOTO is the Brand Same Like JOCKEY. I f you approving their content then why not approving MY article's content. If My article look's Like Advertising then what about Jockey and many other brands? Do you have any problems about my Organizations or articles? I had shown proper reference too.

Please leave a note on my talk page if there is a better or preferred way to accomplish this.

The Times Tribune- Front Page - 2011 http://thetimes-tribune.com/lifestyles/husband-spreads-awareness-after-wife-s-death-1.1098484

Society of OBGYN Hospitalists http://www.ehospitalistnews.com/index.php?id=2050&type=98&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=138729&cHash=da03e20e36 http://www.societyofobgynhospitalists.com/images/SOGHnews2012mtg.pdf

I look forward to your response.

Miranda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afefoundation (talk • contribs) 04:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE: A request to change the account name from afefoundation to mklassen08 has be submitted. TY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afefoundation (talk • contribs) 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Afefoundation. Did you read Wikipedia's policies on the notability of organizations set forth at WP:ORG? If so, you will have noticed that the first paragraph reads that "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." It's not enough to simply have articles reference your Foundation. I have examined each article you have provided and, in each case, the Foundation is either mentioned in passing or not the main focus of the article. The Foundation is not the primary focus of any one of the articles you have provided and, as such, the Foundation is not, at this time, notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with the quality or importance of your Foundation's work. If Mother Teresa was merely a run of the mill nun, she wouldn't have an article written about her either. The fact that she has received significant coverage (not just passing mentions) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is what makes her article suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, not the good that she did.
• The point is ultimately moot. The original article was deleted because it was a copyright violation. If you feel that you can write an article on the Foundation without copy/pasting from any source, while establishing that your Foundation is notable, you should feel free to do so. I strongly suggest that you do so at Articles for creation, which will take you through a process to ensure a quality article. Otherwise, I encourage you to examine alternate outlets to publish an article on your Foundation. Good luck! schetm (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:KCEN open.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have added a couple of secondary sources that should be sufficient to establish the notability of the subject. I would suggest that WP:ORG is satisfied and therefore WP:A7 doesn't apply. Could I respectfully suggest that putting a speedy on it just 20 mins after the article was created was a bit premature. SmilingFace (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I wrote the articles for Dez Playamade, and they are in the public domain...why would u flag his page for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dez Playamade (talk • contribs) 03:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I eliminated all of the material in the article which came from the copyvio source (the church website), and that all statements in the article are now cited and sourced to very reliable sources.

My feeling is that material from the church website can be added to the article by other editors as long as it is not copy-and-pasted or closely paraphrased, but I wanted to start with a "clean slate". The editor who did the copyvios (who deid so when he created the article) no longer seems to be editing, at least under that username. Best, BMK (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Schetm, thanks for your feedback. Do you have any suggestions on how to make it not-promotional? Is it because I mentioned myself as a creator? I can remove that. I'm not trying to promote myself. I created the page because I think it's useful for people to have a place where they can go to learn about Midas, since it's now in use in several agencies and gaining more interest. Appreciate your thoughts. Mattchessen (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiknik Buffalo is being planned for July 26, 2015. You can find more information here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Buffalo.BuffaloBob (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The date has been changed to August 2nd. BuffaloBob (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire). Since you had some involvement with the Trinity Baptist Church (Concord, New Hampshire) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BenjaCamp (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WFOR open.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you please wait for this discussion to finish before moving any more pages?--Yankees10 21:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Ramblin' Lou Schriver, Schetm!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Looks great. Just added an RD tag.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

How do you determine importance of an entry? I am new to this. I have a deletion, which is fine, but would like a guideline. Fecal matter gets an entry, but not a non-profit security think tank or an annual defense and intelligence industry global threat conference? Are you seeking more mainstream culture entries? Mediamemberprovider (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hello, Mediamemberprovider,

• Please know that Wikipedia has no bias on whether or not a topic is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. We look at articles on a case-by-case basis. We don't discriminate against cybersecurity articles. In fact, we have an entire Computing Wikiproject! While fecal matter certainly passes our General Notability Guideline, Your article, Willcox Institute (as it stands right now) does not. Suits and Spooks probably doesn't either.

• Unfortunately, your article has a number of issues that makes its suitability for Wikipedia questionable. For a more detailed explanation on whether or not an organization merits inclusion in Wikipedia, please read the information on this page. Suffice it to say, your article did not specifically state why your organization is notable. It simply stated what the Institution is and what it does. The fact that any organization, no matter what it does, simply exists doesn't mean it should have a Wikipedia entry. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory.

• Your article is also unreferenced. Without references, we cannot determine whether or not the information presented in the article is true. If you can include some secondary sources to verify that the Institute is notable, then it stands a far better chance at inclusion in Wikipedia. As of now, it does not.

• Finally, if you are affiliated with the Willcox Institute, you may do well to read our conflict of interest guidelines.

• All the best, schetm (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Schetm, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. However, please do keep in mind the reason you requested this right and what its effect is, particularly in relation to articles that may meet speedy or CSD guidelines. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! NJA (t/c) 16:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Schetm, is there any chance I could get you to contribute some answers here? Thanks! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi this is Jim Greeninger, I wish I was more technical and able to understand what to do. Can you make it more simple? I will read the "New to Wikipedia" page and see if that helps. Thank you, Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsgreeninger (talk • contribs) 05:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Schetm.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bob Chase is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Chase 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 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. John from Idegon (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

I've nominated this article for deletion. As a contributor, your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election. Robofish (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Ontario general elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doug Ford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:WBLKlogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Oldest living person. Since you had some involvement with the Oldest living person redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The user who accused you of a blatant violation of WP:Before accuses virtually every AFD nominator of blatantly violating (or failure to "comply with") WP:BEFORE. I used to keep a record of it in the hope someone would actually look at the diffs I had collected and call them out for it, but gave up hope when he started engaging in childish name-calling as a response, and I was told it was my fault for feeding him. I wouldn't worry too much about the whole affair if I were you: you'll sleep better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it ok if I love you to semi active or inactive on WP:LAX? It doesn’t seem like you still edit a lot of lacrosse related stuff but if you want to stay in the active category then let me know. Twooeight (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply. My question at the project was indeed a genuine one and resulted from my inability to find any better information on the subject elsewhere. I was somewhat stunned by the nature of the two replies I got at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Longevity. Your post, on the other hand, was much appreciated. Calistemon (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Fantasy Island Grand Island logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:WXRLlogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Fantasy Island Grand Island logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Schetm,

Please forgive me if I screw up the formating on your talk page... I'm new to this.

I wanted to know why you rejected my edit on Angela Richardson's entry on Wikipedia - I can see it's because someone thinks the source is untrustworthy, but in reality, it's not.

- I live in the constituency that is represtented by Angela Richardson - you don't.

- I voted for Angela Richardson - you didn't.

- I'm very dissapointed - you're not.

- I started the poll on NextDoor - another 137 folk voted. I have no sway over them whatsoever. True, it's a small survey sample, but bigger than anything you might see on TV when they're pushing a new shampoo!

I have reinstated my previous edit. I would ask you politely to please let it stand.

Best Regards,

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iankelly63 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you may have reverted too far? It caught this edit of mine. --DB1729 (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored my change. --DB1729 (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool. schetm (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind if I am going to response to this here, but I agree that talk page is a mess and it is better to reply to each one's point separately.

• You write "we have a ton of sources that group these 'mass killings under communist regimes' together."
  • But apparently they do not even agree among themselves on which one to discuss. Karlsson discusses only Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot; Rosefielde adds Kim and Ho; some discuss Afghanistan, others do not; in short, there is not a single sources that discuss all Communist regimes together.
    • They don't need to agree among themselves. They link communist regimes to mass killings. That demonstrates that this isn't some imaginary or fringe topic. This is easily handled by saying "x and y link this together, but z doesn't" in prose in the article.
      • They need to agree among themselves if we are going to present this as an academic fact or mainstream view, as we currently imply. If the link is mass killing, then that needs to be discussed first at Mass killing and Mass killing is the parent article, of which this article should be a summary. Problem is you do not even agree among yourselves on which the parent article is, or should be. Is it Communist state or Mass killing? You seem to be saying the latter, something I can agree with, but other users who support the article just as much as you do, they may disagree.
        • The grandparent article is both. The parent article is Crimes against humanity under communist regimes. And you're welcome to open a discussion at Talk:Mass killing if you'd like. Perhaps a different set of eyes there might be better able to settle this source dispute.
          • Crimes against humanity under communist regimes is even worse, so much so that even AmateurEditor, one of the staunch defenders of Mass killings under communist regimes supported deletion/merge. The parents article of both should be Crimes against humanity and Mass killing make no mention of either, that is why it means both articles are content POV forks. You guys got it backwards, for we first need to discuss them at these parents articles and only then, if they meet our guidelines for standalone articles, they can be their own articles. Yet, none are mentioned or discussed at their parent articles, hence they currently are content POV forks of synthesis. Surely, if Communist regimes are so relevant, they can and should be discussed in these parents articles already. I agree "a different set of eyes there might be better able to settle this source dispute" and that is what I asked for. I hope we will get it, that is the only way.
• "You laid them out yourself."
  • I did that only to show they do not actually support the claim communism is to blame for the events, did you miss that?
    • It's irrelevant whether they think "communism is to blame for the events." We're talking about specific events that took place under specific regimes, not an ideology.
      • Then the Proposed cause section should be moved elsewhere, if this article is only about the events.
        • See my comments below. The article is primarily about the events while also discussing the "narrative."
          • Please, clarify what you meant by "the narrative." Is the narrative that mass killings happened under Communist regimes and they are to blame?
• "You put forth one source critical of these sources."
  • That is not one critical source; that you think it is a criticism, that anything that does not agree with your preconceived understanding of the article and topic, is an issue. That is not a criticism but a review of these authors' work; indeed, that quote I cited came from Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide, which is cited as supporting this topic but does not really discuss Communist regimes and the main topic is "compar[ing] the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina."
    • "That is not a criticism but a review of these authors' work." Reviews are, by definition, criticism.
      • Are you serious? Reviews can be both positive, mixed, or negative. Wikipedia rely mainly on reliable, independent secondary sources, which is exactly what these sources reviewing their words are. We do not say "Courtois proposes" based on what he says according to us, but based on what reliable, independent secondary sources says.
        • "Criticism is the practice of judging the merits and faults of something." As such, reviews are a type of criticism. Now, as to Courtois, the proper procedure is to say what he proposes according to what he says by quoting him directly or providing a neutral summary. And then we include counter criticism in third party sources if what he says is in dispute according to those third party sources. There is, of course, a debate as to whether or not Courtois, or, more precisely, the Black Book, is a reliable, independent secondary source on mass killings under communist regimes. Perhaps a discussion on the Reliable Source Noticeboard could be started to talk about that issue.
          • I had a different understanding of "criticism" but if you mean "the practice of judging the merits and faults of something", I do not see what is the problem. Either way, Courtois is a primary source on what he says or thinks about Communist regimes and a secondary source would be better. In addition, the fact you say Courtois and The Black Book of Communism are "a reliable, independent secondary source on mass killings under communist regimes" is part of the issue because they are not actually about mass killings under Communist regimes; they are about the equivalency between Communism and Nazism. This is the problem, it is not necessarily the sources themselves the problem (we can use them for our rewrite) but that they are not really about mass killings under Communist regimes and in some cases Communist regimes, much less genocide or mass killings under Communist regimes, are not even their main topic.
• "My point is that the topic as it stands right now in the article as it exists right now should stand."
  • So you support original research and synthesis, got it. I hope you will also support similar articles about capitalist, fascist and/or nationalist regimes when books compare or discuss the Holocaust and Indonesia.
    • If you want to write those articles, go for it. I'll took at them on a case by case basis. The proposed article is also SYNTHY in its own way.
      • I do not want to create these articles for the same reason I oppose this article, i.e. synthesis. However, if apparently this article does not violate synthesis, then they may be created and I do not see why they should not, unless one holds a double standard.
        • I address this two down.
• "That's a load of BS and you know it."
  • Then explain why these are the only other 'encyclopedias' doing what we do. The Black Book of Communism was about the equivalency between Communism and Nazism, not mass killings under Communist regimes. They discuss the events but make no clear link and the introduction is more about how evil Communism was and how it was worse than Nazism, than saying there is a link between communism and genocide/mass killing. They make a single-country, not cross-country, analysis as this article implies.
    • You didn't say "encyclopedias." You said "only Conservapedia and Metapedia make the link between communism and genocide/mass killing." No mention of encyclopedias. Ergo, your initial claim is still a load of BS and you know it.
      • I wrote the same comment to another user and I forgot to make it more clear for you; either way, you can back down on your "load of BS" because we actually agree. The link is not between the events and the ideology ("We're talking about specific events that took place under specific regimes, not an ideology.") However, Communist needs to be capitalised because the ideology is not capitalised but the system is, which is usually capitalised because it does not refer to the ideology but to Communist Party-led states, with the Communist Party coming from there, hence capitalisation, i.e. a proper noun. The Black Book of Communism capitalises it ("[r]egardless of the role that theoretical communist doctrines [the ideology, hence not capitalised] may have played in the practice of real Communism [the system, hence capitalised] before 1917"). Because as long as it is not capitalised, the article's name implies reference to ideology and communist regimes may refer to a communist society rather than a Communist state.
        • The title was once capitalized. A userWP:BOLDly changed it, and the RM discussion that followed didn't show consensus to change it back. I personally doesn't care one way or another and wouldn't be opposed if someone opened another RM discussion. Perhaps that someone is you? You can read more at Archive #39. As for the link, it's between the events and communist regimes, as demonstrated in reliable sources. Also, I take it you retract your assertion that ""only Conservapedia and Metapedia make the link between communism and genocide/mass killing"?
          • That just goes to show that, even though Wikipedia is not a vote nor a democracy, in practice that is often what it becomes. Communism is capitalised by many sources because they are using it as a proper noun in reference to Communist Party-ruling states and that is what we should follow. I think a more accurate naming would be Communist states since that is what they are discussing; and communism may imply it is referring to communism and communist regimes to communist society, so the most accurate naming would Communist states since that it is what is about. What I meant was that only Conservapedia and Metapedia have an article like this and that the link between communism and genocide/mass killing is a theory proposed by some authors, not a fact.
• "The main topic is the article as it exists right now: mass killings under communist regimes. That necessarily includes a discussion of terminology, sources, and counterarguments. But it is event focused, grouping the events together as a set, as linked by the reliable sources you put forward, for the purpose of giving the reader more context."
  • As I wrote above, sources disagree on which ones to discuss; some only discuss the "Big Three" and there is no source that discuss any existing Communist regimes together; the only one may be The Black Book of Communism but it makes no clear link between communism and genocide/mass killing and several of its authors dissociated from it. In addition, individuality the events are not called genocide or mass killing (the only exception is the Cambodian genocide) by historians of Communism. Stalinist repressions are called, well, "Stalinist repressions", not genocide or mass killing. Most of "mass killings [or mass mortality events] under communist regimes" were the results of famines, which are the ones that caused the most deaths, but scholars still debate and disagree on them, as shown by "Debate over famines".
    • "sources disagree on which ones to discuss." OK. Put that debate in the article. Or start a RM discussion if you don't like the terminology.
      • Please, assume good faith. It is not that I do not like the terminology, it is that I think it is synthesis and that it is not really used by historians of Communism.
        • If you think it's synthesis, which is in violation of our policies, start a formal RFC or AfD. I disagree, and very little is being accomplished in the mainspace one way or another by our discussion. A formal RFC or AfD has a greater chance of accomplishing the change you seek than our discussion..
          • The problem that is just the beginning, the article itself is synthesis because "the material is [or at least should be] already covered in context elsewhere and combining it here (or in X article) to imply a causal connection that scholars do not say exists would be improper synthesis, so the best option is to debundle the content back where it 'belongs.'" But otherwise I agree that very little is being accomplished that a formal AfD or RfC would still help to see where we stand.
  • Some scholars only made excess mortality estimates under the Stalin regime, not even under the whole Soviet Union; and they do not describe these as victims of communism. They do not make the same for all Communist regimes; and these who are a minority. They do not even agree on the criteria; some count only direct killings such as executions while others count any direct and indirect death (civil war, famines, government policy, wars, etc.).
    • Again, put the debate in the article, while still remembering that being event focused and discussing terminology, sources, and counterarguments are not mutually exclusive.
      • What you are missing is that several users who support the article want to make it event-focused-communist-ideology-blaming, i.e. that there is a link between communism and genocide/mass killing, when you want to make it only event focused and the link being mass killing, not communism and mass killing. Problem is the current article is event-focused-communist-ideology-blaming rather than event-focused as you propose, or theory-focused-communistideology-blaming as I propose.
        • As I've said. The link should not be communism as an ideology. The link should be that these mass killings occurred under communist regimes, and that link should be, and is, supported by reliable sources. It's not about users, either me, you, or someone else, playing an ideological blame game. These communist regimes may share an ideology of communism, but, as the article itself says, most self styled communist regimes did not engage in mass killings with the scope of what's been discussed here.
          • But the problem is there is no clear link between that either. After all, Gorbachev did not engage in mass killings and most Communist regimes did not engage in mass killings (per Valentino); the only ones who did it are Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, the former two being important figures in the history of their respective countries but not the only ones, while the latter has been the only leader but he has been stopped by Communist Vietnam. Is not the link being authoritarianism and genocide/mass killing more accurate than Communist regimes and genocide/mass killing? Contrary to what you think, sources do not make the link clear.
• "Cool. But that's not what this article is about. This article is primarily event-focused."
  • Then I suppose you will have no problem with a mass millings and/or mass mortality events under capitalist and fascist regimes. If we do not need any link that ties them together, then these articles must exist too. I do not think either should exist and this should be described as a concept, narrative, theory, or whatever you want to call it, but I at least expect consistency from you.
    • Sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFF.
      • Sounds more like consistency to me. Do you deny there is a double standard in how communism is blamed for Communist regimes but capitalism or liberalism are not blamed for colonialism, fascism, imperialism, slavery and events under capitalist regimes? If what Communist regimes did indicts communism, socialism and any radical left idea such as universal health care or a return to Keynesianism, then colonialism et al. indicts capitalism and liberalism. I think this is absurd and that neither should be blamed but only one of them is blamed; if we use the same standards and methodology of The Black Book of Communism, capitalism killed much more and is worse than Nazism just because it killed more (I disagree; it is the way Nazis did it that made it worse, that is why I do not think they are equal). There is no remembrance day or memorials for the victims of capitalism, colonialism et al. There is no European Day of Remembrance for Victims of [Capitalism/Colonialism/Liberalism,] Stalinism and Nazism. Again, all of this are not just my personal opinions by views expressed by legitimated and respected scholars academic. I believe I am simply consistent in opposing all authoritarianism, colonialism et al., fascism and Stalinism.
        • To answer your direct question, I have no opinion on the alleged double standards. If there are double standards, the most obvious way to rectify it is at AfD or at an RFC. Now, yes. Communist ideology is in some way responsible for communist regimes, because self-styled communist regimes call themselves communist and have been influenced to communist ideology. That's a truism. Note that that truism does not extend to assigning blame for mass killings to communist ideology, only self-styled communist regimes to communist ideology. And, logically, communist regimes are to blame for mass killings under communist regimes. That's also a truism. Now, if there's a debate in reliable sources as to whether or not communist ideology is responsible for communist regimes, then it should be included in the article, as it is. It is worth noting that we do have Anti-communist mass killings which assigns a clearer link to an ideology (anticommunism) than does this article, but pointing that out is an appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFF.
          • I do not see how that can be solved when users themselves hold this double standard. Again, you assume the link is they were self-styled Communist regimes rather than being underdeveloped economies ("underdeveloped countries with rudimentary political culture and low respect to human life"). There is no link anymore than there is a link between Communist China and Russia with famines when they have happened repeatedly throughout their whole history (see list of famines in China and droughts and famines in Russia and the Soviet Union). How does Anti-communist mass killings assign a clearer link to an ideology? It is simply a list of anti-communist mass killings and is merely describing the events, without making a link with ideology. There is no proposed cause section, it is just a list. It is still problematic for the same reasons this article is and both are synthesis but I do not see how that assigns a clearer link to an ideology. It is simply stating that mass killings have been committed by anti-communist regimes; how is this different from stating that mass killings have been committed by Communist regimes, which you support?
• "To change that would require consensus, which you don't got at the moment."
  • Here, I count 5 supporting the article, 8 opposing and 1 supporting a list of the events. Here, I show there is no clear consensus, which is either a no consensus or a weak consensus at best; several of "Keep" supported rewriting and we are not pursuing deletion but supporting rewrite.
    • So, we agree. There's not consensus at this moment. Remember, WP:NOTAVOTE.
      • Yes, there is no consensus for the current article either; and WP:NOTAVOTE also applies that Keep got more votes by thin margins in all AfD, so there is no consensus either way. I just disagree when there is no consensus, the default is keeping the article as it is, even though there is no consensus to keep it as it is. We do not advocate deletion but a rewriting. You also advocate a rewriting to make it only event-focused since it currently use "communism to blame" link rather than "mass killing" link you propose and support.
        • NO! I do not support a rewrite to "make it only event-focused." I support the article as it is currently structured, which dedicates most of the bytes to events but also discusses theory, and even "narrative." Now, as to consensus, it is practically required to make changes beyond the 1RR. As such and by our rules, the default is keeping the article the way it is absent of consensus.
          • So you support synthesis and other violations of our policy and guidelines. Again, none of the events are actually described as mass killing in their relevant articles. We do not say the Great Purge was a mass killing, or a mass killing under a Communist regime. We say it was a campaign of political repression. Do you know why? Because that is what experts of the event say and they do not say mass killing. Therefore, including the events in the article, even though the events are not discussed as such, is synthesis and pushing the POV of the authors who call them as such, as if it is a fact or academic consensus.
• "Write a new article, parallel to this one, and then put this one up for deletion when it's done."
  • Problem is it is the same topic; we just disagree on how it should be written. And I did propose other users to write a draft; I agree it should be written, so we can compare them and hopefully that will help us understand each other better. I've
    • I've wrote on this here. If you want to spend another decade in talk page purgatory, that's cool.
      • And I and Paul Siebert replied you to that.
        • We're at an impasse here. I'd just ask you to consider which approach is most likely to bring about the change in the mainspace that you seek.
          • I do not know which one (there is this debate between AmateurEditor and Paul Siebert but I do not know what will come out of it) but I agree a draft of our proposed draft would help better understand what we propose (problem is I never wrote an article from the scratch, so I hope the other users can help me with the general structure and source, so I can work on it too and see if that get us closer). Another solution would be a well-written RfC and/or AfD, or even a name change or merge, to see where we stand. I still think the best solution would be an univolved admin or admin(s) who are good at reading source and tell us whose reading of them and/or the main topic is correct. Because we still disagree on what the main topic is supposed to be, although the two sides generally agree among themselves (events vs. narrative), even if in my view there is more disagreement about "the events" than "the narrative", as there is your view (link between Communist regimes and mass killing, Nug (link between communism and mass killing), and these who want it be either only a list or only describing the events without a narrative, much the same way Anti-communist mass killings is.
• "No, we don't. The link is mass killings (or mass mortality events, which I think would be better) that took place under communist regimes. Still event-focused, and still linked together by reliable sources."
  • If the link is only that mass mortality events took place, it shows that even among these who supported "Keep" and support this article there is disagreement. Because several users clearly stated the link is communism (the main topic is the events and that they were caused by communism) while others say the link is mass mortality (the main topic is the events only). If we disagree on this, the solution is not keeping the article but rewriting it.
    • The crux of this debate is not as minute as that. The debate is about "narrative" versus "events." I'm on the "events" side. I think I err when I bring up distinctions in the events side, because you hop on that as evidence of massive disagreement. It isn't, and that debate shouldn't even be had now before we solve the big one.
      • You ignore that you disagree even on the "events" side. Nug supports the link is communism while you support the link is mass killing. Why should we have an article lumping all events together when individual article do not describe as mass killing? We need a clear link because "we cannot create articles that group unconnected events. We need to establish why [...] these events are connected using reliable sources." You disagree among themselves on the connection and there are no books whose main topic is mass killings under Communist regimes. Courtois is about equivalency between Communism and Nazism, other sources compare genocide and mass killings in general (Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, etc.), not mass killings under Communist regimes; very few sources, if any, actually do that.
        • No! The tie which links these events together is that they were a similar events (mass killings) under similar states (communist regimes). You write: "there are no books whose main topic is mass killings under Communist regimes." That may or may not be true, but notability doesn't require entire books, but significant coverage, which is defined in detail there. There is SIGCOV of mass killings under communist regimes. Now, as to Courtois, there is dispute over whether he, or, more specifically, the Black Book of Communism, is a reliable source. Perhaps going to the Reliable Source Noticeboard would be a good idea. He is dealt with appropriately in the article.
          • Again, even that link is not so clear. Gorbachev and other Communist leaders did not engage in mass killings; most Communist regimes did not engage in mass killings, the main ones are Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, three out of what, fifty-something, Communist regimes? Lowering the threshold just to include all the others is not intellectually honest and we cannot, nor should we, mix them up. Why the link is self-styled Communist regimes and not underdeveloped economies or Eurasian totalitarian regimes? You simply assume that since they were self-styled Communist regimes, that is the link but while "Communism has a bloody record, [...] most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing." If there is no book whose main topic is Communist regimes and genocide, or mass killings under Communist regimes, and all we have are passing mentions or a chapter, that means they should not be standalone articles but they should be discussed at Genocide, Genocides in history and/or Mass killing.
  • Again, I would hope you are consistent and support a similar article about mass killings under colonial, fascist, nationalist and right-wing regimes and mass mortality events under capitalist regimes; the latter happened in liberal-democratic capitalist India and Russia (see "Causes of the Russian mortality crisis: Evidence and interpretations", "Macroeconomic consequences of the Russian mortality crisis" and "Premature Deaths: Russia's Radical Economic Transition in Soviet Perspective"). If The Black Book of Communism is enough, The Black Book of Capitalism and The Black Book of Colonialism, both written by academics, should be enough. Redefining Genocide: Settler Colonialism, Social Death and Ecocide says "[o]ne of the earliest studies to have demonstrated how capitalism can produce environmental destruction, which in turn leads to genocide" and "Ecocide, Genocide, Capitalism and Colonialism: Consequences for Indigenous Peoples and Glocal Ecosystems Environments" says "[e]cocide and genocide have been connected throughout the history of capitalism. [...] To illustrate this, the article explores connections between ecocide, genocide, capitalism and colonialism and discusses impacts on indigenous peoples and on local and global (glocal) ecosystems."
    • I neither support nor oppose hypothetical articles which do not exist. Nor will I be drawn into a debate about such hypothetical articles which do not exist.
      • But you should support them, if you are consistent; sources are there too.
        • I don't debate hypotheticals. I just don't do it. Show me an article that currently exists in the mainspace or draft something concrete, and I'll look at it.
          • Look at this mockup as an example (Genocide in Muslim countries). If we use your lower standards for inclusion, this article should be created too.

Davide King (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Davide King, For ease, I'm replying under each individual point. I ask you do the same, adding anything new under this. schetm (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• We actually agree the link should not be communism, but we disagree on how to structure the main topic. You support "the events" side but the article currently links that to communism, not to mass killing, as you propose; while I support "the narrative" side which state the link of communism as a theory. If the link is mass killing, then its parent article is Mass killing and this is where it should be discussed. The article should be a summary of it, not vice versa. We are currently acting like the parent article is Mass killings under Communist regimes, when there is no mention of it at Mass killing. Davide King (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Davide King, I'd argue that the grandparent articles are dually Mass killing and Communist state. Any article about "the events" don't simply include the events. It primarily focuses on the events, but also discusses theory, and even "narrative.", as I've said.
• Of course, a case can be made that the true parent article is Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, and I'd be supportive of a merge into that article under that title in spirit, while recognizing WP:LENGTH concerns. schetm (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• As I wrote above, Crimes against humanity under communist regimes is even worse than this article. None of this answers the fact the parent articles do not discuss these two articles, meaning they are content POV forks and synthesis, since they were specifically created as standalone articles to push a POV rather than being first discussed in the parent articles; but how can this be when they are not discussed in either articles? Once they are actually added to their parents article, you will see they will not be saying anything new and content will be replicated from the parent articles, hence they will become redirects because all information in both articles is, or should be, already in all relevant articles, hence these two articles selectively replicate content to push a POV. Davide King (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Please expand your comment on that AFD by providing a functional definition of 'celebrity'. Thank you. DS (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

A celebrity is what is defined in reliable sources as a celebrity. schetm (talk) 03:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Americanassociationoflutheranchurcheslogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:WECK1230logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:WECK logo 2018.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NelsonBaker.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 22:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It had to do with off-wiki outing/harassment. You could try asking the deleting admin for more details, but anything more is probably best said in private. clpo13_(talk) 18:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:North American Lutheran Church logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

thank you for adding your photograph to damar hamlin's page !! folks like yourself wikipedia an abundantly better place for readers and editors alike. Ayyydoc (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to drop you a friendly note in recognition of the really good Buffalo, New York-related contact you've been adding to Commons lately. From one Western New Yorker to (I'm assuming?) another, hope to see more in the future! -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Real Time with Bill Maher open 2017.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:WJSE-Planet-1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:WWKBlogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, along with a random bot, File:USL Logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. 174.128.153.62 (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:EvangelicalPresbyterianChurchLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:WBBF Hot 98.9 logo.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 11:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)