User talk:Enquire

Talk:Gary Utilities

Please consider moving the newly-created Talk:Glary Utilities to User:Enquire/Glary Utilities (talk) or some such and asking for a refund at WP:REFUND. The reason is that, where it is, the page is eligible for speedy deletion as a "page dependent on a non-existent page." I have put a note at the top of the page asking administrators NOT to speedy-delete it even though it is speedy-eligible. However, a REFUND is probably not going to happen based on JamesBWatson's comment

"I never delete an article for copyright reasons without first checking back to the earliest versions to see if there is a version I can revert to" in the text that you copied from his talk page archives. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand you had trouble making the move. I made it for you. I don't know why the move failed for you. With respect to moves, I have no more user-rights than any other "autoconfirmed" editor (that is, any editor who doesn't have a brand-new or rarely-used account). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I moved again because it was in a user page, even though it included "...(talk)" in the page title. I intend to start creating the content in the user page, per:

• User:Enquire/sandbox/Glary Utilities ~ sandbox for new article "Glary Utilities" (currently red-link)
• User talk:Enquire/sandbox/Glary Utilities ~ location where discussion ended-up

I hope to have roughed out an article on the above in my sandbox sub-page by the weekend.

Enquire (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

Civility, maturity, et al require that simply leaving a less-than-elucidating edit summary in order to change a hatnote to feature, "For contemporary usage, see Registered Cossacks of the Russian Federation." may seem obvious and appropriate to you, but not to others. If you take a look at the talk page, you may get a sense of this being a contentious article. In contemporary usage, active groups of cossacks take on many more forms than the one you have picked out. The IP who left an uncivil edit summary in reverting your edit left an uncivil revert summary. I have reverted your reinstatement of the addition to the hatnote with a comprehensive rationale for the reversion.

Should you feel that I have made a mistake, please feel free to respond here or, alternatively, start a section on the subject on the relevant talk page. Thank you, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Enquire. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 23:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of crowdsourcing projects, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tomnod

The article Tomnod has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable... fails

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-markup

I noticed that you used HTML formatting for italics in a recent edit. On wikipedia, you can surround text by two single quotes (well, four, two before and two after) to get italic text. To get bold, use 3 single quotes on each side. For bold italic, use 5 on each side. Examples: ''Italic'' renders as italic. '''Bold''' renders as bold. '''''Bold italic''''' renders as, you guessed it, bold italic. See Help:Wiki markup for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. Is there any reason why I should not use HTML formatting?

Enquire (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Enquire. You have new messages at YSSYguy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mariées mais pas trop listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mariées mais pas trop. Since you had some involvement with the Mariées mais pas trop redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study

Thank you for your interest in our user study. Please email me at [email protected]. Wkmaster (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

MH370

I've just added names to many of the citations there. It should make your job of moving the refs a bit easier. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your continued effort. Kindly note that it would be a waste of effort "cleaning up" the dates into yyyy-mm-dd format. The article has used the dmy format since the early days, and the yyyy-mm-dd would not be an improvement and would also violate MOS:NUM and WP:RETAIN. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What you refer to is germaine to the article itself. Per citations, the ISO format is generally preferred, per Help:Citation_Style_1#Dates, see:

● Access and archive dates in references should be in either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD.

Enquire (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Most of the publication dates in the article are dmy and have been for a long time. Help:Citation_Style_1#Dates does not contradict nor overrule MOS:NUM, so please leave those dates alone. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• FYI the yyyy-mm-dd date format allowed in WP is exactly that and no more. They may look like ISO dates on the surface, but WP does not follow all the strictures, so it would be a mistake to refer to them as such. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe this helps: ISO Dates ... how does YYYY-MM-DD NOT follow ISO 8601? Enquire (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:3O

Hi Enquire. I have declined your request at WP:3O because you have not complied with the instructions there. Please note that the instructions call for a section link to a section on the article's talk page dedicated to the 3O discussion and instruct that No discussion of the issue should take place here – this page is only for listing the dispute. The WP:3O edit window also has comment line saying where to add your comment (between two capitalized HTML comments). I would have declined the request anyway on the grounds that the issue appears only to have been discussed on your talk page, not the article talk page. However, when filing any future 3O requests, please read and follow all the instructions given there. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Interlink Publishing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Interlink Publishing 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/Interlink Publishing 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of CopyProof paper

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that CopyProof paper, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It covers a topic on which we already have an article - Security paper. (See section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Security paper, or to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Safiel (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)