| Revision as of 20:15, 3 November 2008 editKazuba (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,277 edits →The rest of the story: Tell me about it ,Roy.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:11, 17 February 2023 edit undoCycloneYoris (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers84,271 edits Notification: listing of Rvvv at WP:Redirects for discussion.Tag: Twinkle | ||
| (90 intermediate revisions by 36 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == File:Aaevp-audacity_noise_levels.jpg listed for deletion == | |||
| {{/Template}} | |||
| A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] 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. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 02:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == Re: ] == | ||
| (in reply to a message you left me years ago) I think it's now too out of my interest areas, not because of what it is, but because of implications of the words defining it. Did the article improve?--] (]|]) 07:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Hey Mr M. Orangemarlin and TMtolouse are back to adding the POV tag to Orgone again, for no reason I can discern (in case you hadn't noticed). I've filed another ANI about it ]. just thought you'd want to know. --] 04:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Chhh listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''Chhh'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 23:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| ==A. A. Allen== | |||
| <blockquote>Personal file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use</blockquote> | |||
| Check out my visit long ago. ] talk page ] (]) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| == Compromises == | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| You do realize if you and I can compromise to several of these articles, most people won't complain. I appreciate what you just did! Thanks. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 16:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Flaming campaign == | |||
| == "ESPPP" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hi Martin, I spotted that you ammended the 'spiteful' heading on the ] page. The user (et al.) is now throwing a tantrum and has engaging in a as part of their protest.This includes an allegation of me somehow being an anti-semite becasue I declared myself a ''policy nazi''. Would you mind advising please, if you have time. ] (]) 11:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 16:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| :] reverted everything. But if you have a chance please can you take a look at please and see what you think. My personal opinion is that the user is engaging, at the very least, in meat puppetry, more difficult to prove is the possibility that the same user is employing different accounts from differnent IP's, home, work, perhaps. An unresolved sock puppet case has been filed, if you would like to add a comment you can do it . You are of course free to ignore all of this! Thanks. ] (]) 13:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 17#Rvvv}} until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <small>]</small> <sup>]</sup> 10:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Response from ] | |||
| In terms of flaming - I was unaware I was doing anything incorrect as I am a fairly recent editor here. The point is ] continues to attempt to charge me with this false silliness. I am sure that ] would like to see me kicked off of wiki as I dare oppose ]'s aggressive language and editing tactics. What a waste of time. ] (]) 13:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry Martin for drawing other comments here. See VY's for comments by others, the user has been instructed to go to ]. ] (]) 13:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::PLease ignore above, issues have been addressed for now. Best. S. ] (]) 15:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::For now! : ) Cheers. S. ] (]) 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Just a friendly reminder == | |||
| ] was opened and involves you - you seem to have missed Shoemaker's message about this, so I'm reminding you. Thanks. ]. 14:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Psychokinesis revert== | |||
| Greetings. I reverted your edit to the disputed tag on ]. I understand why you made the edit you did, based on the talkpage, but I dont' think that is the intended use of the field. Please see my suggestion in the article talkpage and see if we can have a less garrish alternative to point out the article-issues. thanks! -] (]) 21:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Blossom Goodchild== | |||
| Seriously? You should know better than this. ] (]) 03:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| No, just lost track reloading the history page. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I see what you mean. :) I think I'm gonna unwatch the page and let it go down the shitter. The vandals can have it. There are more important articles to focus on. Be well buddy. ] (]) 04:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually there's no need. It's been G4 speedied. :) ] (]) 04:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Re : It took me a moment to figure out what you were referring to as it was rather vague, but now I follow. I made a mess for moment, but I think I've got everything back to the way it should be. Since the admin that closed the AfD was to moving the article back into mainspace, the reposted content speedy deletion is borderline. I recommend filing another AfD if you think the article should be deleted in it's current form. -- ] (]) 05:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Re : I blocked an IP regarding that article? I don't remember blocking anybody specifically for vandalizing that article. It appears that there are lots of IPs interested in her for whatever reason. I suspect that the vandalism is just a lull. -- ] (]) 05:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Re : Oh, okay. I blocked that IP back in 2007, which is why I didn't remember that. It was over a different article, too. -- ] (]) 05:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Re : Not a problem. Everything is all good. -- ] (]) 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot == | |||
| ] predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! | |||
| {|cellspacing=10 style="background-color:transparent;" | |||
| |- | |||
| |valign=top| | |||
| ;Stubs:<!--''']:'''--> | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| |align=top| | |||
| ;Cleanup | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| ;Merge | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| ;Add Sources | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| ;Wikify | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| ;Expand | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| |} | |||
| SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping. | |||
| If you have '''feedback''' on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on ]. Thanks from ], SuggestBot's caretaker. | |||
| P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on ]. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ] (]) 19:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==What is a Science?== | |||
| If I were a professional scientist in physics and lasers (what ever) and did studies and experiments using precise measurements and data, statistics, the latest high tech electronic equiptment, personal observations, testamonies, etc. seeking an answer to: "What is largest number of angels that can stand on the tip of a pin?" and complained my most accurate positive data was being "ridiculed and attacked" by "close minded atheist" skeptics; would I be doing science if my stuff showed up in some type of scientific journal? ] (]) 03:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Science isn't defined by the use of lasers or statistics. If you use the ] to generate and test hypotheses which describe and predict aspects of the natural world, then you're "doing science". ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 04:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::(edit conflict) lol - oh, I ''gotta'' chime in on this one. {{=)}} | |||
| ::first, science (if it's defined by anything) is defined by methodology, and that includes creating and structuring the parameters of your research question. the problem with a question like "What is largest number of angels that can stand on the tip of a pin?" is that you'd need to define 'angel' in terms that can meaningfully measured in terms of size, volume, or other relevant material properties that might play into the relationship with a pin tip. If you can't do that, you can't develop a research design that would be remotely acceptable to other scientists. | |||
| ::second, merely showing up in a scientific journal is irrelevant. the purpose of scientific journals is to present research to other scientists so that they can investigate and try to replicate the results. If no one else can replicate the results, or even understand the research, then it will ultimately be ignored as an unimpartant publication. | |||
| ::third '''if''' you can meaningly define the question, and '''if''' other scientists can replicate and use the result, then guess what: you're doing science. hooray! --] 04:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Some thought-provoking points are made . ] (]) 04:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Well, this took off. This is what I put on Kazuba's talk page | |||
| No, but you'd be doing science if you asked "are there such things as angels." In the case you describe, it is assumed a priori that the angels exist. Doing the processes of science on that which assumes the unproven is not science, but doing the processes of science to prove the unproven is science. However, no one has clearly defined what "science" is. That's just my opinion. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 04:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| As Ludwigs.... Once you prove the existence and properties of angels, you can do science on them relative to pins. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :And once you establish replicable properties of angels, they cease to be supernatural and become phenomena subject to natural laws, open to scientific testing. However, producing a statistical anomaly which you claim shows that there must be angels on the pin is a mark of pseudoscience. The meaning of science has changed since its 18th century meaning of general information, and while there is much disagreement about pinning down how to define it, there is virtual unanimity on issues of demarcation. . . ], ] 09:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: One must also consider the great gaping holes between the atoms and how angels interact with with electromagnetic fields (]). | |||
| :: More usefully, I think that one of the key issues for deciding how to treat parapsychology is whether SETI astronomers vs. UFOlogists is a good analogy, or if it all assumes the existence of angels. - ] <small>(])</small> 13:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::ugh. The science/pseudoscience thing is such a pain... {{=)}} it seems to me that the issue here is the relationship between research and metaphysics: 'theory' is always metaphysical, and research is the tool that bridges the gap between the metaphysical and physical reality. A metaphysical claim (a theory) might be correct or incorrect; everyone knows this. Scientific research is aimed at finding practical, reproducible applications of the theory - it accepts the theory as ''de facto'' true if it can find them, and basically ignores the theory if it can't. Pseudoscientific research tends to get caught up in trying to demonstrate or 'prove' whether the ontological claim is true or false - the practical use of the theory is basically irrelevant to the effort. so (for comparison) the theory of gravity is an unprovable ontological claim about the nature of the universe, but researchers have found nearly infinite practical uses for it, and so it is accepted (''de facto'') as a scientific truth. The existence of angels is also an unprovable ontological claim about the nature of the universe; however, a question like ''"how many angels fit on the tip of a pin"'' is quixotic, designed to challenge the ontology directly rather than put the theory to any practical use. that makes it pseudoscientific. the same thing with SETI astronomers and UFOlogists - SETI people have a well-defined research program that produces practical results on a daily basis (i.e., streams of radio telescope data to be analyzed). UFOlogists spend most of their time trying to convince others to consider the ''possibility'' of UFOs on the weight of anecdotal evidence (and even fall into government cover-up theories when they can't find sufficiently convincing anecdotes). | |||
| :::really there's a lot of overlap between the two, and the stark division that gets drawn between them is so misleading. I mean, what do you do with someone like Tesla, who is such a completely typical pseudoscientist except that most things he did worked? --] 19:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == The Left Half of the Half Barnstar == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Half Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I hereby award thee, Martinphi, the Left Half of the Half Barnstar, for willingness to compromise and for nice messages, by thee and by Orangemarlin, demonstrating co-opero-bridge-ification of a type likely to assist significantly in constructing this encyclopedia. ] (]) 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| : For with ] at ], and for . <span style="color:Red; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 15:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you! :D We need to perform more co-bridgeoperations. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 00:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Ed Dames Prediction, What was really said?== | |||
| http://allnewsweb.com/page50.html It is now claimed Ed Dames, who did not find Steve Fossett with search parties as he said he would,(no effort at all) supposedly pinpointed ]'s crash site by remote viewing on the "Coast to Coast" show. All News Web This would have to be 23 May 2008 show. This is the only Coast to Coast show between the time Fossett was lost, 3 Sept 2008 and found, 28 Sept 2008, when Dames appeared. Does anyone have the "EXACT" words of Dame's prediction? Are they the same as what he now claims?] (]) 23:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| There is discussion over there regarding a proposal to merge the relevant portions of ] to ] and leave the former as a disambiguation page for paranormal vs. gaming uses of the term. Nobody has yet indicated that the two terms are distinct enough to require separate articles - would you care to weigh in one way or another? Thanks, - ] <small>(])</small> 19:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Storme Aerison == | |||
| I nominated the ], whose content you removed with your concerns about policies, for deletion.] (]) 06:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == A unusual favor == | |||
| First of all, let me start by saying that I ''know'' that this is outside of your normal area of interest. In fact, that's part of the reason that I'm talking to you. In an ongoing discussion over at ], we are at a standstill over the issue of fringe theories. I've just gone to ] and looked at the user pages of several contributors, until I found two who seemed to have opposite views on WP:FRINGE. '''''You''''' are one of the two that I found. Would you be willing to look at ] and the ones below it that deal with this topic, and offer your opinion? I know that this is not the sort of thing you normally do (nor is it for the other editor I selected), but you ''do'' appear to maintain an interest in ], and coming from the outside, you might really be able to help us. Thank you. ] (]) 12:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you! ] (]) 19:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Incest Taboo == | |||
| Well, the article needed a wake-up call. I am still looking for a couple of citations, and am trying to get some other people won project:anthropology to go over it, but I am glad you think it is back on track, ] | ] 14:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Martinphi, you have been cautioned before about interactions with ScienceApologist. I see that at the ] guideline, you reverted him. However, you are not engaging at the guideline's talkpage (though to be fair, neither is he). However, this may be considered a violation of your ArbCom restrictions, so if you continue with this course of action, your account access may be blocked. Please do better to engage in discussion, rather than just reverting someone with whom you have a long history of conflict. Thanks, --]]] 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :We've been through this: before, such things were said, and while I stopped reverting him, he did not stop reverting me. Indeed, I was still avoiding reverting him long after he no longer had any qualms about reverting me with nasty edit summaries. Meanwhile, as per recently at ], he would attack me on talk pages. After several weeks or months (?) of this, I told his tutor that I could no longer refrain from reverting him directly: it is just too much strain to do that when he is under no such real restriction. I'll look and see if you've given him the same warning. If he is under the same rules as I am, and you really mean it unlike Vassyana (who just gave up), then fine. But I'm not going to be held to a different standard than SA. I'm willing to be held to the ''same'' standard, though, even though my general behavior on Misplaced Pages means that I should have much more leeway to revert or make mistakes than he does (that doesn't mean the same restrictions: restrictions should be based on actual behavior). | |||
| :Further, I reverted him only after two other editors had. One revert. So it's not as if I was doing anything out of the ordinary. That's just ]. | |||
| :But, there is no ArbCom restriction on me concerning ScienceApologist. My ArbCom restriction was to not be disruptive, and reverting in the way I did could not be considered so. I am then to be page banned, not blocked. | |||
| :You want us to disengage: that's not possible, as we edit the same articles. What you should want is that we behave in equally civil and non-disruptive ways. And you should apply any restrictions based on actual user behavior. If he can manage that, all will be well. But "disengage" means he and I can't edit the same articles. | |||
| :My behavior is so much better than his that I should not be treated in the same manner as he is: that people think restrictions need to be the same for both of us is merely a matter of wiki politics, part of the double standard that SandyGeorgia talks about (see quotes above). It is not in any way based on user behavior. It never was. It's just that the fact is so much clearer now than it was a year ago. | |||
| :So, in a nutshell: if you really mean it, well and good. That is, if you are going to ''do something about it'' rather than just talk. No admin who took on SA ever did, and you haven't yet. I got the short end of the stick because I abided by any restriction or request, and SA did not. | |||
| :Question: if I'd said something on the talk page like "I reverted to the longstanding version which several editors, including myself, seem to consider better. Please discuss the edits and form consensus before reverting again" would that have helped? I can do that. However, I should not be required to do a detailed analysis of his edits. It is for him to convince and form a consensus for change, not for me to convince him and form a consensus for no change. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Go to Hell== | |||
| . ] (]) 03:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Cool, I didn't see that in searching for weather in Hell (: ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Raymond Moody== | |||
| I don't think you examined the source of the mental hospital stuff and Raymond Moody. It came from an interview with Moody, himself. The material is most likely fact. He said it. I am going to put it back. I don't think you took the time to read the source material. You just jumped the gun. I'm not criticizing the guy. I am only supplying his own data. Are you in a hurry or something? ] (]) 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Why don't you contact me first before you jump to conclusions. (You seem to do this often. That is the reason you buy a lot of this PSI stuff which is well...shaky, to say the least) Take your time. Have you ever read "Life to Life" and examined Moody's sources? I did a long time ago. WOW! ] (]) 00:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| You mean "Life After Life," I suppose. Anyway, this is just the way WP goes... ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 01:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| You are correct it is "Life After Life" my error. Slip of the lip. Like I said it was long ago. 30 years? It was recently recommended to me by my grievance counciliar. Some things never change. For NDEs The interest should be in the LEGALLY dead not the clinically dead. It is impossible for me to say what state of mind my wife was in before she died. But she did misidentify people. (I think) a day to a couple days before. A hospice nurse told me she could probably hear. ] (]) 01:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You seem to be taking Moody seriously, but I'm not sure in what way. I'll look more at the source when I have time. ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 01:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==It is the same old same old== | |||
| Moody ventured outside his field of expertise and was caught by the irrational and the occult. This is not a place for innocent lamb amateurs who know nothing about the various tricks the mind can play. They even prefer to avoid a critical study of the past of this strange magick realm. It gets em' all the time. They are so naive it is difficult to fathom. Who knows more about magic and deception than magicians? Men of science? No way. It ain't gonna happen. Ever. These are not people who make their living by deceiving others. Deception can be ingenious. Say hallucination, say delusion, say creative imagination, say careless, say mentally ill. These common human errors are real. You just don't get it, do you? kazuba 05:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::And you just haven't read the book, have you? You think hospital patients were magicians who, for some reason, were just making up stories without using any magic tricks??? ——''']'''</span> ] Ψ ]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==The rest of the story== | |||
| They did NOT make up stories. They were just on unfamilar ground. They mistook somaform? dissociation for a reality. Their experience with the unreal was at a minimum. I don't think the people of the past made up stories about witchcraft, magic and the supernatural. When you read their words they had experiences they just did not understand properly. Same with NDEs and OBEs. If you believe in voodoo there is a good chance it will work on you. Especially if someone is driving you crazy by beating on a drum all night and you are in an uncomfortable place being eaten alive by mosquitoes. (The middle of the swamp?) Here in Detroit Voodoo priests supposedly sprinkled Lycopodium around the outside sills of windows. The victim inside the building dies of lung conjestion. At least that is what I heard from a herbalist when I tried to buy some. Ever read Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad and what it is based on? Conrad watched Europeans go crazy in the jungle. (The movie is Apocalyse Now. Take a look at the books Brando is reading.) As for Moody I originally had two links. Perhaps that made it confusing. I dropped the first. One of my favorite explorers into the strange places of the mind is ] Your mind can really fool you. When I wanted to know about folie a deux and shared visual hallucinations he was the one I contacted. He is an expert. The human mind is very fragile. Just look at the news and human history. Moody like Elizabeth Kubler-Ross went over the edge. I think it was due to being around death, suffering and hopelessness. These are tough things to handle and not be affected. My wife's deep religious faith calmed her as she heroically faced an inevitable death. I found the goodbye letter she wrote me saying I will always be in her prayers. Super chick. Who could ask for more? ] (]) 13:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:11, 17 February 2023
File:Aaevp-audacity_noise_levels.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aaevp-audacity_noise_levels.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. 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. Hampton11235 (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Re: Astral projection
(in reply to a message you left me years ago) I think it's now too out of my interest areas, not because of what it is, but because of implications of the words defining it. Did the article improve?--dchmelik (t|c) 07:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Chhh listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chhh. Since you had some involvement with the Chhh redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:Socratic barnstar.jpg
The file File:Socratic barnstar.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Personal file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
"ESPPP" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ESPPP. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#ESPPP until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
"Rvvv" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Rvvv has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 17 § Rvvv until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris 10:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)