User talk:Badagnani: Difference between revisions

3210:

large areas of text on articles that have been worked on by many knowledgeable editors over a period of years, then reverting again and again in a hyperaggressive manner, and showing little knowledge or interest in the actual subjects of the articles) is not included in this pool of editors who should be restricted to a single revert per day. The issue really is one of content, and the highly aggressive removals, and over 1 year of stalking, and accusations that I am a "spammer" (going on to this very day) on the part of these editors is very trying to an editor who prides him/herself in ensuring that our articles are as good and encyclopedic as possible. I love to work with other editors but this gang of three really are nearly impossible to work with in a collegial manner, as they follow me everywhere, always in an attempt to delete content, and never in the "building together" manner I really prefer, and which I think characterizes the ethos that our project represents at its best. Reversion would not be necessary by anyone if consensus were first built by these highly aggressive editors before large areas of text are removed from articles.

1040: 3111: 5136: 1662:, no one is being partial here. The reason I warned you and not him is that he has not edited since his last warning and you have. Your insistence on calling foul every time someone warns you is disruptive and annoying. I see you have been blocked in the past for "communication problems", and you are continuing to refuse to communicate properly. Needlessly criticizing the person who warns you, rather than addressing the actual issues, does nothing to improve the discussion. 629: 3150: 6132: 6112: 5994: 5907: 5854: 5798: 5778: 5758: 5723: 5703: 5683: 5663: 5629: 6016: 5975: 5962: 5346: 5269: 5242: 5081: 3819: 3761: 2083: 1897: 6244: 6213: 6182: 6165: 6150: 6081: 6050: 6033: 5927: 5874: 5817: 5646: 5472: 5382: 5366: 4593: 4577: 4561: 4430: 4251: 4235: 1641:), with no problem found except by the constant-stalking editor. No action has been taken, ever, by any admin, against this stalking, showing a clear lack of impartiality on your part. If you can be impartial, your comments here will be more highly valued. Thank you again for your interest in my editing--I have done so for many years and added many hundreds of new articles to our project (for which I have received no thanks from you--why is that?). 5594: 5574: 5554: 5534: 5514: 5494: 5448: 5102: 4532: 4507: 4069: 4027: 5429: 742: 4113: 5289: 5029: 4979: 4924: 4874: 4819: 4724: 4644: 4360: 4348: 4283: 4176: 5176: 5159:. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Knowledge using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate 4153: 4088: 4051: 3875: 3928: 3713: 3690: 3604: 2010: 1809: 1407: 1261: 799: 720: 68: 4189: 3464: 389: 5836: 5740: 5611: 5411: 5396: 5228: 4389: 4312: 3976: 3947: 3904: 2172: 1543:

his/her mind. The request not to edit these articles any longer on my part was made, as I mentioned, just moments after the other editor had undone my edits in every single article, removing content supported by the community (save the single, habitually stalking/content-removing editor) in every instance. Again, your interest in my editing of our project is greatly appreciated.

1489:

and the other editor is a long-term stalker who has devoted often more than 50 percent of his/her edits to undoing my own (on whatever subject) since March 2009. One can't simply police Knowledge by intimidation, without doing so in an impartial manner, showing that the "enforcers" also have the good of our articles, content, and users foremost in their minds.

3230:? What do you think of those, in light of the fact that User "GTBacchus" seems to present him/herself as an impartial administrator? If this is the way he presents himself in on-Wiki discussions I can't imagine what kind of things he is saying on the off-Wiki discussions that are certainly going on behind the scenes. 1829: 3844: 3786: 3537:

What is to discuss? Badagnani edits in good faith. He has contributed an ENORMOUS amount to the encyclopedia and engages collegially with lots of editors. Unfortunately, there are several editors who disagree with him who relentlessly chase him to new articles to incite conflict. Some others who have

3209:

Thank you for your interest in my editing. I'm not sure I understand this conclusion or how you see that one has been arrived at, as I see conflicting opinions at that page you referred me to. I am also confused why the user "Bdb484" was nincluded in this, as his/her editing practice (always removing

3257:

Bdb484: Do you have a long history of negative interaction with Bdb484? I was familiar with your interactions with GraYoshi2x and Ronz, but I do not recall seeing Bdb484's name until the last week. Depending on what your history with him is (ie. is it days, weeks, months, or years long? Does it span

1488:

Thanks, why not undo the blanking before making such a warning? The warning seems to have been made just after the other editor undid every single one of my edits, getting nearly 100 articles just the way s/he wanted them. The improvement of our articles is foremost in my mind with each edit I make,

1212:

provides etymological origins of loanwords in its entries. In this case, the word is derived without changes from the Pali/Sanskrit root. The Thai script can usually be directly converted to the IAST representation or other Indic scripts, including Devanagari. I have no real knowledge of either, but

692:

I suppose I should have posted here sooner to offer some support. Of course I'm outraged by this absurd block on you, but hopefully you can work it all out and be back soon. I didn't have anything to say to you on it because I didn't know how to be of any help in resolving the situations and I don't

3374:

present myself as impartial when it comes to you. I acknowledge that I'm still upset with the shitty treatment I received from you in the past, and I see no evidence that you understand how or why you've upset so many people. You told vile lies about me (yes, I've got diffs), and frankly, I dislike

3069:

Hi again. Just an update on the ANI case, which you don't seem to have had a chance to chime in at yet. There are several editors (including admins) who would like to see you blocked indefinitely. But it's clear to me, at least, that despite your chronic communication problems, you are making a lot

2982:

You know, I spent this last week looking for sources and couldn't come up with even one, which makes me think that maybe these aren't accurate translations. I'd err on the side of including them, except that we still haven't found anyone who can explain why a list of translations is appropriate for

1460:

I have warned GraYoshi, and that warning applies to you as well. Edit-warring across numerous pages is unacceptable, and your block log is long enough that not many administrators are going to have patience with you. Please do not make large-scale, undiscussed reverts like this again, or you may be

1053:

It's a gray area. But I don't think discussing the need for hindi words and their translations on the hindi talk page is particularly out of order. It seems to me to be a good way to go about improving the encyclopedia. If there's a better place to post the requests perhaps you could help move them

1542:

No, that is not what I am asking. I am asking that such "enforcement" be made in an impartial manner, one that does not uphold months and months of stalking that are directed only toward undoing my edits, and showing that the "enforcer" really does have our articles, content, and users foremost in

372:

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 until the discussion has finished.</div> ] (])

297:

289:

1506:

I have reviewed the discussions linked and it looks like the consensus of the May discussion was more or less in favor of wikt links, but it was not made explicit. Given how much you and GraYoshi have already edit-warred, it would be better for you to start another discussion there asking outside

820:

It's a new school (1991) in a slum and working-class, heavily-minority suburb of Paris; their graduates face uphill struggles and mostly have not reached the pinnacles of fame yet. Sadly, I can't help much, because I speak no French. Nonetheless: all colleges are inherently notable; and one that

3347:

I'll leave it at that for now. Along with any other replies you'd like to give to the above, could you please specifically tell me how extensive your history with Bdb484 is, and either accept or turn-down the suggested 1RR editing-restriction? (so that we can begin to close out the ANI thread.)

351:

The article will be discussed at ''']''' 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

2028:

Thank you, I assume you have an interest in this diet. All of our articles should be written from an impartial point of view, not favoring certain results over others (I assume the studies cited above all show how good this diet is, as opposed to pointing out any problems with it).

1090:

Being correct and being helpful are two different things in this case. It would be good to bring them together. Thanks for the pointer Quid. I think Badagnani would appreciate the requests being moved to that venue, that would certainly be preferable to their being deleted.

1636:

Thank you for your continued interest in my editing. The practice of adding Wiktionary links in a selective manner, providing etymological information when dealing with Chinese or Chinese-derived script, enhances our articles and has been discussed at length (including

191: 1213:

substituting letter by letter, I'd agree with the script you provided. As for identifying the stems of compound terms, I'd say its a matter of experience and familiarity with the language; it's usually part of Thai language lessons taught in local schools. --

571:

of the comments in that thread (ideally mine) in order to avoid the situation descending into semantic arguments, and to give me/us a few rounds of dialogue, so that we can try one last time to resolve the personality clashes. I do think it is possible, but

60: 3314:

that he originally deleted is very long, and looks quite like a misplaced/misformatted list of interwiki links. Can you see how he would have interpreted it as something akin to "a list of 250 translations of the word 'spoon' in a top-section at the

3001:

Again, many of the names are very well known and even have their own WP articles. You again and again fail to address this issue. I don't know which sources you used but most likely none of them were print sources such as the "New Grove Dictionary."

1014:

I concur that this discussion is important and warranted. All the additions should be reverted (preferably by the editor who added them in the first place), as all those articles, as I can tell, were already in subcategories of "String instruments."

6260:. 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 until the discussion has finished. 6229:. 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 until the discussion has finished. 6198:. 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 until the discussion has finished. 3518:

of these conflicts you've been having, but you need to communicate with us for anything positive to happen! Ask us anything, and I (and probably others) will try to explain my view. And/Or reply to some of the comments above, as a start. --

6140: 4566: 1912:

I think sources should be found in other languages than Korean, or that editor should translate the relevant passages into English and provide them in the footnotes (if you request him/her to do that, it is important that s/he do that).

2983:

an encyclopedia entry or useful to a reader looking to learn about the goblet drum. So I'm going to go ahead and hide them. I think it would be best if you were to then unhide each of them individually as you find reliable sources. —

1557:

The only reason I warned you after GraYoshi's edits is because that's when I noticed the dispute. If I had noticed right after your edits, I would have warned you then. Please don't assume partiality when there's only coincidences.

2594: 3079:

restriction instead, which would allow you to continue editing freely without getting bogged down in high-level content disputes or edit wars. I'm hoping that you (or any other user who monitors this page) will chime in at

1175:

Badagnani, I would highly appreciate you if you proofread the article with your fair writing ability. It is one of a few GA articles in Korean Project, and I would provide Korean sources, but proofreading is not what I can

5251: 3538:

old grudges againt him have joined in to take this opportunity to try to get rid of him, and Jehochman has once again short circuited our established processes, disregarded our procedures and imposed his personal whim.

1638: 1281: 3179: 2963:

Again, many of the names are so well known (and even have their own articles) that they would not merit deletion. Let's work together to find sources rather than attack one another and work to degrade our content.

2795: 2527: 2393: 2259: 2728: 2460: 2661: 4342: 2862: 2326: 2183:. If you are interested in being a candidate, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. Nominations are open until Sunday 3 January. You can see more information about this at 331:<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to ] or whether it should be ]. 2131:

I can't remember how I did it. Maybe I used Photoshop? There is also a very good program called FastStone Capture which can scan any image on your computer, although its resolution isn't terribly good.

4515:

Non-notable scientist. Having looked through the history of this article and done a search for sources, I cannot find enough coverage of him in third-party sources to satisfy the notability guidelines.

4159: 1511:

determine whether or not to revert the articles. You are in no position to revert any more. (And neither is GraYoshi, whom I have also warned about this, so please do not accuse me of being partial.)

4164: 3656: 5115: 1982:

The question was, did the education take place in the very tall tower-like building? If not, the English term "pagoda" (which refers to a tall tower-like building) is inappropriate in this context.

5234: 3330:, is something that even moderate-RS-interpreting editors are uncomfortable with. I'll try to find some more examples to discuss in detail, later. But basically, it would be good if you could be a 787: 4147: 4264: 15: 6002: 6142: 6155: 5822: 3666:

Other articles on people are then treated in a similar way ie we would then cover BLPs only and their related articles (plus any other contemporary-music-related articles, as appropriate).

6156: 5731: 3701: 3556:"I agree with his editorial slant, am typically not an active editor in articles his edits have diminished from, and he hasn't been rude to me. How dare anyone else find fault with him?" 3500:

You deserve better than this swamp Badagnani. Jehochman is delivering punishing you for your having been hounded for months. Oh well. Take care of yourself and have fun. Happy New Year.

5487: 4472: 2588: 6023: 5261: 4140: 6024: 5716: 4568: 3574:

I suggest anyone who is upset take a deep breath, step back, and give Badagnani a chance to respond. If he wants to respond, he will. If he doesn't, he won't. It's his choice now.

1311:

Hmm..no, GraYoshi2x, you started the edit warring by removing the wikitionary linking and did not leave any edit summary most of time for the change.--19:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

5387: 5214: 3706: 3400: 5751: 4918: 4582: 3728: 5482: 5023: 4973: 3334:

more careful as to which internet sites you use as sources (eg. blogs and flickr images are not usable. Commercial sites should be avoided. Primary sources are tricky). Give

4868: 4121: 4099: 1801: 1249: 594: 2198: 2179: 5711: 5402: 4613: 4256: 4045: 3018:

Be aware that a user is permitted to delete stuff from their talk page, as it implies they've read it; and that continual posting on a talk page when asked not to, is an

2789: 4638: 3869: 3647: 2521: 2387: 2253: 5982: 5862: 5746: 4001: 3964: 3938: 3591: 2722: 2454: 2655: 174: 4414: 3585: 2947: 1856: 4240: 560:. We need some kind of feedback. We explain (each in our own way - some more politely or relevantly than others) what kind of feedback we're hoping for. Some of us 5969: 5948: 5602: 4768: 4718: 4272: 4107: 4082: 3811: 2856: 2320: 3081: 5950: 5567: 4443: 4354: 146: 557: 5417: 5283: 4813: 3753: 3729:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Rjanag/Latin_phonetic_method_of_Shanghainese#User:Rjanag.2FLatin_phonetic_method_of_Shanghainese

2075: 1586: 6201: 5915: 5656: 5587: 5547: 5527: 5507: 5477: 3921: 1796: 966: 5933: 5917: 5791: 5073: 4703: 4603: 4277: 4170: 3738: 2185: 2911:

Kindly write to me in a human rather than templated manner in the future. The articles do all contain sources, if every sentence doesn't have a citation.

5806: 4337: 4224: 3919: 1889: 1444: 1267: 1158: 5847: 5808: 5771: 5635: 5562: 4773: 3696: 3614: 1997: 941: 5637: 5338: 4803: 4793: 4713: 4623: 1951: 960: 6086: 6071: 6055: 6040: 5830: 5651: 5582: 5542: 5522: 5502: 5461: 4708: 2356: 6010: 5786: 5463: 5256: 4525: 4419: 4094: 3734: 3173: 1203: 6187: 6172: 5956: 5671: 4968: 4863: 4808: 4688: 4608: 4500: 3609: 2016: 3565: 3424: 815: 90: 5842: 5766: 5219: 4550: 3670: 1775: 702: 2609: 833: 28: 6120: 6069: 6038: 4778: 3887: 3514:

If it is wanted, I'd like to offer you my advice on any questions you might have. There are a few valid frames-of-reference for looking at

3509: 2125: 2002: 1991: 1975: 1724: 1353: 1024: 747: 3578: 3551: 2576: 1183: 1100: 1085: 1001: 616: 5355: 5333: 5301: 5041: 4991: 4936: 4886: 4831: 4736: 4698: 4656: 4480: 4372: 4295: 1306: 1291: 987: 5315:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 5055:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 5005:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 4950:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 4900:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 4845:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 4750:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 4670:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 4396:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 4319:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 3911:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 1745:

because it seems that you don't see the use in EL cleanup, or article cleanup in general, both at Music of Australia and Oud. Removing

1118: 1063: 6170: 5090: 4693: 4628: 4520: 4490: 4485: 4057: 4015: 3678: 2069: 1341: 926: 905: 884: 863: 235: 3625:

We refine our scope according to the "written in the last 50 years or so" statement agreed upon a few months back and included in the

6253: 6222: 6191: 6090: 6059: 5938: 5885: 5617: 4788: 4783: 4495: 4127: 3956: 3322:

3. Sources. This is the main issue that multiple editors see as a problem: Some editors have a particularly strict interpretation of

2038: 1703: 1439: 69: 3663:

Therefore, CTM simply focusses in on those people relevent to our project but not bannered by other projects eg composers with BLPs.

3528: 3357: 3239: 3219: 3044: 3030: 1883: 953: 5439: 5169: 4618: 3412: 2920: 2163: 2141: 2044: 1943: 1922: 1754: 1610: 1433: 1296:

I wasn't talking about the linking. I was talking about Badagnani's reverting behavior in itself. Please don't change the subject.

1234: 1217: 841: 588: 3298:

the impact they have on readers. You also tend to write in 'generalities' instead of specifics, when in disputes. For example, at

3011: 2992: 2973: 1680: 1650: 1576: 1552: 1529: 1498: 1144: 6100: 5900: 5371: 5278: 4798: 4464: 3451: 3383: 3258:

a few, or dozens of articles?), I'll ask him about modifying his interactions with you, and good-faith presumptions, accordingly.

1418: 693:

think I'm in any position to do anything about the current block. I'm just hoping that you can sort it out. Oh well. Take care.

3053: 1624: 5418: 4633: 3742: 3702: 3159: 3098: 2570: 1250: 1166: 788: 2810: 1384: 182: 86: 5691: 3719: 2542: 2408: 2274: 2147: 1479: 1390: 3283:. It would be good if you could be more careful to keep edit-summaries brief and informative, and not editorialize in them ( 2777: 3439: 3124: 2743: 2509: 2475: 2375: 2241: 2119: 708: 607:

Yes, nice work. I just added a tag and assessed it as a stub since there is only one section and the rest are appendixes.

216: 127: 119: 2676: 2566: 1860: 1268: 1135:

would probably have been a better place, since there doesn't seem to be any issue here requiring administrator attention.

792: 405: 6232: 4218: 3493: 3026: 2943: 2710: 2442: 1852: 1769: 1160: 1132: 186: 131: 2643: 6004: 5895: 5824: 5733: 5604: 5404: 5389: 5221: 4474: 4266: 4258: 4160: 4101: 2877: 2341: 1358: 821:

offers 160 majors and 3 doctoral programs (according to their website) certainly should not be simply speedied away! --

726: 3970:

If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to

576:

if we can get fresh input from you, about ways you are willing to adapt or change certain habits (as explained there).

3169: 3149: 3035:

Sorry, but I'm using this talk page appropriately. I'll happily take advise on how to present my comments better. --

2844: 2616: 2308: 2022: 1730: 1395: 4040: 4010: 1503:"Why not undo the blanking" is just a way of asking me to continue your edit war for you, which is not appropriate. 1454: 1284:

You were the only one against the usage of Wikitionary, so please drop the meaningless edit warring with Badagnani.

893: 731: 5160: 4435: 3748: 3679: 3592: 3584: 2771: 1998: 1709: 1630: 1396: 709: 419: 243: 154: 2503: 2369: 2235: 1753:

and you shouldn't discourage editors from doing this. I've reverted you at this article as well and I see from

3996: 3203: 2115: 2055:

Again, please discuss your edits. I'm giving you a chance to do so, and the only comment you've left so far at

1282:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject China/Archive/May 2009#Naming convention for Chinese foods and usages of Wikitionary

932: 2704: 2436: 1757:

that this has been an issue for you in the past as well. Take our external links guidelines to heart, please.

1073: 686: 5987: 4598: 3636:

our scope to include only living people and their works (while retaining the other relevent articles such as

2637: 1196: 872: 851: 545: 538: 532: 526: 520: 514: 508: 502: 496: 209: 3311: 3303: 3284: 2767: 1693: 413: 4584: 3637: 3280: 3166:, a collaborative effort to rescue articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. 2582: 2499: 2365: 2231: 1814: 1675: 1571: 1524: 1474: 490: 484: 478: 472: 466: 460: 454: 448: 442: 220: 108: 3327: 2838: 2302: 1076:). Jeppiz is correct that a talkpage should only be used for discussing the article it is attached to. -- 6121: 6101: 5983: 5896: 5843: 5787: 5767: 5747: 5712: 5692: 5672: 5652: 5583: 5563: 5543: 5523: 5503: 5483: 5091: 4521: 4496: 4206: 4058: 4016: 3963:

If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at

3481: 3430: 3267:

GTBacchus: Those are some extremely disappointing comments. I'll definitely talk to him about that later.

2700: 2432: 1819: 1376: 1274: 661: 3310:

a list of names/translations was fundamental/basic/etc. From Bdb484's perspective (as I imagine it) the

3299: 3186: 2633: 4460: 3388: 3323: 2817: 1931:

sry i fixed the link to the images...you can check the image now ! and I actually did tell him at here

1735: 2549: 2415: 2281: 198: 6257: 6226: 6195: 6094: 6063: 5942: 5889: 5194: 4545: 4196: 3992: 3547: 3505: 3471: 3075:

I've therefore endorsed another user's suggestion that instead of being blocked, the admins impose a

2834: 2557: 2298: 2216: 2111: 1096: 1059: 997: 811: 698: 645: 636: 397: 3049:

That's easy. Present them in an RfC, rather than in an edit war that makes you look as bad as him. -

2750: 2482: 1966:

is a very tall tower-like building. Is that where the education took place, in the very tall tower?

1597:

Got it- i reverted to a non-move request version, you might want to check to see that it's correct.

97: 5184:

It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can

3619: 2683: 889: 806:

By all means add content and citations to the article. It's a collaborative encyclopedia. Cheers.

6218: 6203: 5880: 5864: 2049: 1764: 1710: 1380: 1254: 1242: 1069: 976:

rather than bothering Badagnani with it. Badagnani, feel free to remove this message. Cheers.

959: 757: 550: 150: 115: 5163:. Thanks for editing Knowledge and I look forward to working with you! 20:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 4455:

I used your user page as a template for mine, because it was very interesting. Thanks, broseph.

3399:

Badagnani: You are rapidly running out of time to avoid an indefinite block. Please chime in at

2884: 2348: 3561: 3393: 3287:, this kind of information just clutters up the history page, and is unlikely to ever be seen). 3117: 3110: 2926: 2097: 1868: 1781: 1718: 1697: 1285: 1177: 933: 914: 653: 425: 3654:

If that goes ahead, WPComposers may wish to unbanner composer BLPs and leave them to CTM (see

5323: 5186: 5148: 5123: 5063: 5013: 4958: 4908: 4853: 4758: 4678: 4540:

A publicist with an unsourced BLP wiki article? I suspect some self-publicity going on here.

4456: 4404: 4327: 2783: 2211: 1956: 1197: 868: 847: 681: 63: 2515: 2381: 2247: 6125: 4242: 3543: 3501: 2939: 2015: 1604: 1591: 1092: 1055: 993: 992:

I'm pretty sure it's just a collegial discussion regarding how best to approach the issue.

922: 901: 880: 859: 828: 807: 772: 694: 599: 123: 2716: 2448: 8: 5152: 4202: 3575: 3477: 3457: 3418: 3227: 2955: 2649: 1791: 1140: 1109:

to get the opinions of others. You are all very welcome to participate in the discussion.

777: 612: 972:

This is a user talk page, not a page frequented by admins. Please take your request to

6143:

Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members

5297: 5037: 4987: 4932: 4882: 4827: 4732: 4652: 4368: 4291: 3883: 3524: 3447: 3353: 3131: 3023: 1879: 1759: 1081: 1047: 982: 782: 584: 3986: 2850: 2314: 2152: 1843:

The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded for your unbiased contributions to create

5676: 5618: 5316: 5056: 5006: 4951: 4901: 4846: 4751: 4671: 4397: 4320: 3912: 3862: 3804: 3557: 1939: 1620: 1449: 622: 256: 205: 167: 3836:

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.

3778:

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.

1934:

which is on 27 October 2009. and he's been active after that date...ignoring me.. --

1741:

Hi, I just saw you remove the EL warning that someone else gave you. Please reread

5422: 4226: 4212: 3683: 3487: 3442:

was archived today in the edit after this. Just a note/link for ease of access. --

3408: 3094: 3063: 2988: 1114: 1034: 673: 667: 104: 16: 3937:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at

2870: 2803: 2736: 2669: 2602: 2535: 2468: 2401: 2334: 2267: 6105: 3858: 3800: 2758: 2062: 1746: 1598: 1413: 1372: 1334: 1299: 1243: 949: 918: 897: 876: 855: 822: 1039: 3818: 3760: 3596: 3231: 3211: 3050: 3040: 3003: 2965: 2912: 2490: 2222: 2133: 2098: 2082: 2030: 1983: 1967: 1932: 1914: 1896: 1848: 1642: 1544: 1490: 1425: 1189: 1136: 1016: 910: 752: 608: 556:

Hi again. Please, take a moment to read my comments, and the ongoing thread at

5116:

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

5252:

Nomination for deletion of Template:National anthems of the Caribbean Islands

5095: 4077:

I can't see any notability for this musician, no coverage in reliable sources

4062: 4020: 3830: 3772: 3671: 3520: 3443: 3349: 3163: 3084:

and let us know whether they think this might be an acceptable route to take.

3076: 3019: 2153: 1906: 1875: 1797: 1231: 1214: 1128: 1106: 1077: 977: 973: 580: 44: 5622: 5204: 5135: 4421: 3335: 2691: 2423: 2206: 1935: 1786: 1742: 1616: 1124: 628: 600: 251: 162: 5311: