Jump to content

User talk:Hippalus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi there. Feel free to talk!



This page on Berossos is on your to do list, I think.

Collaboration of the Week


Your vote for African art has helped bring about the article's selection as this week's Collaboration of the week. Please join in trying to make the article a feature.



League of Nations is the new Collaboration of the Week. Please join in helping make it a feature article.

Cape (Geography)


Ah, now I see. Problem solved, I've just redirected the article in question to the Headlands one. No need for a delete. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:44, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Headlands of New Zealand


Please stop putting all the headlands of New Zealand into the Category:Headlands! They are already in a subcategory of Category:Headlands, namely Category:Headlands of New Zealand! I've had to revert four so far. Grutness|hello? 10:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)



You're going to hate me...complaining twice in a row! I've been going through the geo-stubs, putting them in their correct subcategories. I've just been back and there are a load more, all headlands, that should have been marked UK-geo-stub, Africa-geo-stub, US-geo-stub... you're doing loads of good work (which is why I hate to be a grouch) but please check there are regional geo-stub categories next time :) Grutness|hello? 14:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) (PS - I like the new name!)

Yeah, I do hate you now! ;-)
Sorry, when I created the Category:Headlands (...) I did indeed change lots of stub messages into geo-stub messages. I overlooked the existence of those geo-stubsubcategories (...) I'm very willing to go over the headlands myself and replace them where appropriate. (Hippalus on User_talk:Grutness)

Don't worry about it. My current wiki-work is going through all the geo-stubs and subcategorising them where possible, so I'll come across them as I go (there were over 4000 of them! It's down to about 2900 but there's a long way to go). It's also possible I'll be putting in two or three more subcategories in the next couple of weeks anyway. Just don't do it again ;) And keep up the good work with the headlands! Grutness|hello?

...are you still going through all the Geo-stubs... I created a Netherlands-geo-stub template just now (Template:Netherlands-geo-stub). By the way, how do I get this template on Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs?--Hippalus

Heh. Good timing - I'd actually decided to call it quits on that yesterday, haviong made categories for all countries with more than 40 stubs in the plain Category:Geography stubs. NL would definitely have been one of the next few worth doing though. As to Wikipedia:Template messages/Stubs, you edit it the same way as any other page. If you're unsure of the html involved, I'd suggest copying one of the other sections which has just geo-stubs (Norway would be nearby alphabetically), pasting it in to the correct place (just above New zealand, IIRC), and then change the word Norway to Netherlands in that section. Grutness|hello? 22:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) ALSO - have a look at the way that Category:Netherlands geography stubs is now edited - it puts the category in the right parent categories! Grutness|hello? 23:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)



Hi Hippalus - it's me again :). Just curiosity, but is there any reason why you have one of your user pages (Frieth) is listed in Category:UK geography stubs? Italways looks a little odd seeing user pages in the stub categories... Grutness|hello? 03:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

COTW Project


You voted for Decolonization, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Tony Jin | (talk) 02:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

COTW Project


You voted for Culture of Ancient Rome, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

Wasn't me!


Um, thanks for the kudos, but it was Dschwen who put the reorg notice up on Talk: Roman Empire. Ddama 20:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vote here keep


exscuse me but also Muriel has done this trying to get people to delete this article important for a monarchic branch. This is a democratic encyclopedia and so this page has right to stay here : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosario Poidimani (3 nomination). Regards, M.deSousa 24 January 2006 (UTC)



Well, I hadn´t nothing more to do (more truthfully, I hadn´t much energy) and I happened to see the request in "Category:ancient Rome" and the "official request" at "Category:Religio Romana".

I simply transfered all its articles and sub-categories to the better named "Category:Ancient Roman Religion".

If you want to rename (move) that category into something more accurate try "Category:Ancient Roman Religions". There was not a single religion but all of them (with very few exceptions) were adopted by the Romans and were as "roman" as the original ones. "Category:Religion in Ancient Rome" doesn´t seem to me more accurate than "Category:Ancient Roman Religion" and it "feels" somewhat funny and strange (personal opinion).

Having said that, could you do me a few "personal" favours?

Could you delete completly (obliterate) "Category:Religio Romana"? It´s completely empty and useless now, and I simply hate the fact that the english Wikipedia reaches such a high number of articles with empty and microscopic articles and categories. Quality, not Quantity.

I noticed that the reorganization of the Roman empire had been abandoned by many of its supporters and I decided to slowly improve it. I guess you and myself are the only ones now, but that is fine by me. I don´t like to improve an article with many ppl. In all these improvements someone, somewhere, will make a mistake, and in our eagerness we will not notice it until a much later date. That´s why I have been so quiet in the Roman republic article in more recent times. By the way, Vedexent is a very good editor indeed. Flamarande 12:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I have to ask you: Holland, is it accepted as a name for your country, or not? Flamarande 12:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! Somebody answers my e-mails! I was really terriefied that everybody had agreed to "ostracisize" me somehow. Well not really, but I had already sent ~ 7 messages to diffrent persons and noone! asnwered and I was beginning to wonder... Well I am planning to improve to article/reorganization of the Roman empire, but slowly and in my own time, and I have now to go to work so I will only return tomorrow. I have been busy (1st with other things besides Wikpedia) with "full and complete reforms" of the articles SPQR and Western Europe. Please, take a look if you want to. Flamarande 13:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: have you noticed the fine edits of Vedexent? He improved the article of the Roman republic by alot. He appears to have english translations of the latin originals. This very good indeed, but we (in fact: he) have to be carefull with the information and the hidden bias (POV) of the sources themselves. Remember always: "History is written by victors and by loosers, interpreted and sometimes rewritten by intelectuals and fools, manipulated and used by politicians, and simply ignored by rebels and the masses, who always make the same mistakes." I explained it much more throuroghly at: Talk:Roman Republic (→The worth of ancient sources and modern books) Flamarande 13:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still improving the reorganization article but I am (very) far from finished. Take a look and give me your opinion, if you don´t mind. Flamarande 13:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Horn


Hi, I thought you might be interested to know that Cape Horn is having a peer review. Comments welcome. — Johan the Ghost seance 23:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Beste allemaal Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 13:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Hi Cool Cat, I saw you deleted the references to Kurds on Batman,_Turkey. I'm not very knowledgable on the subject, but according to the BBC [1] Batman does have a predominantly Kurdish population. I think that should be mentioned somehow in the article.--Hippalus 16:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see. Ill do something about it. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better? [2] ? --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but still a bit strange as the previous sentence does tell us about a census... So I changed it again [3]. what do you think?--Hippalus 17:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. Much better, thanks. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the airport reference; I saw that someone else had removed it due to only 3 flight a week, but it's still an airport. I'm fine with your having pulled the The Guardian link inline; there is, however, a lot of other good background in that link; maybe we should keep it as an extern as well? --Moby 08:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Great Leap Forward and Decline of the Roman Empire were selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

-Litefantastic 00:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again....


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan - Bertilvidet 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not voting without reading arguments. Often people forget to recognise good conduct, well I dont. You are to be commended. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Thank you for the comment about my picture! Unfortunately the website of Batman Municipality does not indicate the year for the census. But as it is the official website I would assume it is the newest available offical data. Bertilvidet 10:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and so is done. Bertilvidet 15:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cool Cat, I do understand why some editors prefer the more compact version of the statement, but I see the sensibility of the issue. I can live with either version, as long as the (claimed, if you like) predominance of Kurds is mentioned. Apart from that, I'm fine.--Hippalus 15:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An afterthought: as there seems to be a consensus that Southeastern Anatolia does have a predominantly Kurdish population, I think I prefer the version without the explicite statement that this is a claim by the BBC - the current revision, that is. Why? Because that statement is misleading. It isn't just one controversial claim by the BBC. Those articles of the BBC and the Guardian, and Globalsomethingdotorg, accept those data as established facts. I don't know if they are right in doing so, but if those facts need to be contested, they should be contested first on the talk page of Kurds in Turkey or Kurdistan. If the consensus there changes, those changes can be reflected on articles like Batman, Turkey. I don't think pages with little traffic like Batman, Turkey or even Talk:Batman, Turkey are the right arena for such discussions. What do you think?--Hippalus 13:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove the inline reference to the municipal website. Even though it is a double reference, it is valid here, as it the source of the population figure. Cheers,--Hippalus 15:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use ref? Ill apply this. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine.--Hippalus 16:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Cat, I had a look, and that sure ia a good solution. Now the only issue left on the article is the Kurdish one... ;-) --Hippalus 16:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I do not see a reason for a discussion. We cant talk about demographics without a census. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply on Talk:Batman, Turkey.--Hippalus 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cool Cat, I noticed you just reverted Batman, Turkey to the 'BBC version'. You probably didn't read my last comment on the talk page when you did that. Could you please read my comment, and consider reverting your reverts back to the 'proposal version'? I would really appreciate such a move. I know I'm asking much of you, but I believe it is important we all treat this matter in a constructive way. Are you willing to work with me on reaching a solution? Thanks a lot!--Hippalus 19:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not accept a disclaimer not here but on any article. How many articles do you know that has disclaimers?
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I can't comprimise just because Bertilvidet demands esspecialy when what he suggest is talking about ethnicity fractions without a census to base it on. His argument is a set of wesle words at best.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 19:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The battle over Gotham City


Hippalus, I really do appreciate your efforts in seeking compromise and keeping the cool, so we don't all end up in the Arkham Asylum. I changed the article to the compromise you suggested, but do actually agree with the Cool Cat (woman or man), that this is no permanent solution. But as you have mentioned, this little dispute is not just about the entry of a dull city, with an exciting name. The debate is indeed of a very principal character, namely how Wikipedia should deal with minorities in countries where they are not recognised. I am still not familiar enough with Wikipedia policies and structure to know where to adress such questions, of a more general nature...Any ideas?? Just send me a Bat-signal! Bertilvidet 09:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batman revisited


Hi there Cool Cat, thanks for your reaction. I see you still have some issues with the temporal version. I'll try to adress them here. First of all, as far as I can see the 'proposal' version doesn't contain weasle words. If you do see them, could you point them out to me? We might change those. Secondly, your concern about the 'disclaimer-message'. I think it is inevitable we have a disclaimer here and there in a collaborative encyclopedia like this one. A lot of Wikipedia's articles actually contain disclaimers. The POV-tag is the most famous disclaimer message, probably. However, I think a 'disclaimer' in a footnote is more encyclopedic than a POV-tag. References and footnotes are a procedure used very often in science circles, and generally approved of. I think they will make this a better encyclopedia. Okay, a last request. Have a look at the 'proposal' version for a second time. Could you please tell me whether the 'disclaimer'-footnote covers your concern on the unverifiability of the demographic statement? And if that is the case, could you consider leaving it to the readers to decide whether he accepts the statement as true or not, till we find a better compromise? Cheers,--Hippalus 19:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not accept any dislaimer of any kind. {{POV}} ment to be a short term disclaimer. Your disclaimer ment to last till census which is slightly less than 10 years asuming that census will check ethnicity. This has nothing to do with my satisfaction or not. You cannot suggest something then talk about how baseless it is in a disclaimer.
  • The argument by the other party of the discussion is nothing but weasle words.
I realise you are trying hard to come up with a middle ground. Sadly I do not see a middle ground and am not willing to comprimise from my stance at the moment.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 20:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I appreciate you took the time to understand what I'm trying to get at. Yeah, I did notice you aren't really open for middle grounds at the moment. It was worth the try looking for them though, wasn't it? Hey, my eye happened to fall on your wikimood index, and I am starting to wonder whether your present uncompromising stance on Batman, Turkey, has anything to do with circumstances elsewhere on Wikipedia. In that case, you might want to consider giving yourself some time to cool down. Maybe in a few days you'll find the energy to work on compromises and consensus again. Yours, --Hippalus 22:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really appriciate the time and effort you are putting into this. You do understand why I am not comprimising although it really has nothing to do with my wikimood. I contribute to a large range of topics. I am more that willing to comprimise on Fall of Constantinople for instance. On Batman, Turkey however I can't comprimise as I am not willing to accept census data w/o a census. --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cool Cat, true, census data without a census would sure be weird. But hey, there seems to be a misunderstanding somewhere. As far as I can see, nobody claims those are census data! The 'proposal-version' even explicitely state that there are in fact no census data.
But anyways, I must express my thanks that you didn't revert the article. That is admirable conduct. Also thanks for asking a neutral third party for his view (when you mentioned your wide range of interest, I had a peek at your 'recent contributions'). I will second your request. Have a nice wiki-evening!--Hippalus 16:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and without census data we dont mention fractions of ethnicities elsewhere and when we do mention we explicitly state a census hadnt taken place. I havent reverted because its pointless, revert wars are disruptive. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought I'd thank you for your efforts re the Batman articles. It seems that it's been a rather contentious last few days! The compromise version seems to be going in the right direction. Please see my comment about categorizing on the talk:Batman, Turkey page. --Moby 12:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its perfect for you, there hasn't been a comprimise as far as you are concerned. The lead is exactly how you want it with a disclaimer hidden from sight. Hippalus I am not leaving this matter and I am not accepting the current version. Only reason I am not reverting is because no one else aside from me cares about explicitly stating estimates rather than presenting them as facts and then disputing their factual acuracy with a disclaimer. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I expect (and fear, a bit) that there will be a very large and vocal turnout. If you can help keep things from boiling over, I would appreciate it. Thanks again, --Moby 14:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about done for today; I expect dozens of comments and many other edits to review by tomorrow. Best, --Moby 14:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Kurdistan


For your information: the question which articles should have the tag 'Category:Kurdistan' is currently being discussed at Category talk:Kurdistan. Yours,--Hippalus 13:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, however I feel I can contribute little to the debate. Noone there is willing to listen, that includes me as well. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Cool Cat, I just thought you might be interested to voice your opinion. But true, it is better not to join debates in which you are not willing to listen. The reason why I suggested moving the debate to Category talk:Kurdistan is not to give POV-pushers a better chance, but because I saw a new revert war (on the Kurdistan-tag) dawning in Batman. At least editors of all POV's will find their way to Category talk:Kurdistan, which I think is a good thing. I might not join the debate myself, though.--Hippalus 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is if wikipedia policies were enforced I wouldnt be debating. No one would tolerate if I were to tag paris with a Category:Germany or Category:Germanistan. Frankly I was hoping it would be resolved w/o my pov comments at the cfd. But no. A lot of the people voted keep simply to annoy me. Not because of what they felt approporate. You might have already realised but I have a wide range of enemies and perhaps no allies on wikipedia. Even people I trust end up turning their back on me with quite lousy timing. I could whine all day, but it wouldn't do me or you any good.
To keep it short, please pardom me if I am not enthusiastic of any debate involving Kurdistan category on wikipedia.
It has nothing to do with you as if you were trying to annoy me you would come up with something better. I honestly feel you were trying to help mediate the dispute. I attempted to mediate disputes before. All of which ended as a disaster because of the stalker's interference for that I was prohibited to mediate. I just hope you aren't discouraged by this, it really isn't your fault.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 23:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and contraversial issues regarding kurds


I honestly feel you are giving pov pushers too much slack. That includes the Turkish Kurdistan, Batman, Turkey, as well as Category:Kurdistan. I urge you to consider applying WP:NPOV. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ierapetra Seafront.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 11:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Rome was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.
Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 01:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team[reply]

Please help on Mathematics

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Mathematics was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Posted by Pruneau 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team[reply]

Please help on Ancient Egypt

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Ancient Egypt was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Posted by Pruneau 18:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team[reply]

Religion in ancient Rome


Hi there.

I have just one question. Regarding your article titled "Religion in ancient Rome", do you know, if at the time that the emporers required worship, if they required all other gods to be denounced and for themselves to be worshiped only? Can you tell me if this were ever true for any of the emperors?

I very much appreciate your help on this matter. Thank you in advance! Anthony

Re: Beth She'arim


Ah yes, I forgot to add the stub tags. I have added them now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, great, let's have an edit war! Your move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gill110951 (talkcontribs) 13:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter


This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.

The Judaism Newsletter


This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sweeney case


Misschien wil iemand eens een Nederlandse vertaling maken van de "Kevin Sweeney case" bladzijde op engels wikipedia...!? 't is maar een kort stukje. Gill110951 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Zografou4.jpg


File:Zografou4.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:ZografouFromTheBellTower.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:ZografouFromTheBellTower.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zografou anchorage.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Zografou anchorage.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Zografou3.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Zografou3.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article used to be a trainwreck and I have been trying to rewrite it to cover all academic approaqches to "culture". The section on "cultural studies" is weak, and one topic that perhaps could be better explored is the idea of "anti-essentialism" as an important theme of or infuence on cultural studies' approaches to "culture." Could you look at the section and see how you could develop it? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Berenice.jpg


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Berenice.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation


Your upload of File:A ruined house on Crete.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The file File:Ierapetra Bay 2.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, no encyclopedic use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.


This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]