User talk:Xuanwu

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


Hi, Xuanwu, Welcome to Wikipedia!

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

Ayaka hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and The FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or The Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on My User talk Page.

Additional Tips:

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

  • If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
  • If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like &#126&#126~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • You may want to add yourself to the New User Log
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Happy Wiki-ing. -- John Fader 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revenge is hollow filled with ashes[edit]

John, your attempted revenge on pOnju for banning you is not going to give you any peace or fulfillment even if he is stopped from posting on Wikipedia. He doesn't care about Wikipedia - it's just a distraction and an annoyance to him; a separate place where he felt like he needed to correct half truths and distortions. On the other hand, you still care very much about pOnju forums and the people there. How many friendships will you burn up in your quest for empty symbolic revenge that can't satisfy you? Will you sacrifice Ju on this altar? Kittyhawk? Emi? Leave it alone man... the ban was long overdue, after many people tried to talk sense into you (including myself) and after several second chances you have burned every bridge by continuing in behavior that was not acceptable... you even acknowledged it yourself at one point when you were thinking more rationally. It's in your own best interest to stop killing friendships with irrational behavior. I don't wish you ill, I wish you well, but I can't stop the natural consequences of the actions you choose.Jonathan888 (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't have pushed for Henry being banned from Wiki if he'd behaved a little better. If you look at the RFC, you'll see he made several personal attacks against me and stooped to a level of name calling I never did during my time on the forum. And, worse, he didn't even try to work out his differences in a manner appropriate for Wiki. He literally stormed in, said "I'm the boss," and refused to listen when the errors of his ways were pointed out. He has been the one acting almost wholly irrationally, as he refuses to stop and consider changing his actions.
Henry's deeds have been noticed by others (such as the pOnjuers on my forum) and he has lost a great deal of respect for what he's done here. What he's displayed is the same pettiness that he's accused and banned others for. I think this is one reason so many active pOnjuers followed me to my forum (including Emi). Frankly, even I was surprised by how badly he refused to follow Wiki rules - I'd have thought he would have been careful to do everything by the book and keep a cool head in disagreements rather than start swearing at people.
My point is that my actions against Henry haven't been as part of some kind of revenge (if they had been, I would have started the RFC as soon as he started editing to try and get him banned for WP:AUTO violations). However, once a Wiki editor starts throwing swear words at another, action has to be brought against them, which is what I've done. And the longer Henry behaves irrationally, the worse it will reflect on him both here on Wiki and in his own forum. Xuanwu 16:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He was a new user trying to defend his creation against what he perceived as attacks and distortions. In fact, if you dig into the talk page on webcomics and notability you will find that this pattern has even become a 'meme' of sorts: article about webcomic appears, author tries to correct inaccuracies, edit war ensues, article is deleted.Jonathan888 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi John. Sorry it came to a ban on pOnju. I'm not able to respond to your PM since the acct. is banned. Hope you find happiness. Jonathan888 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question on Republic of China edit[edit]

Hello, just have a quick question regarding your recent edit to Republic of China on the pan-blue position. You mentioned that Lien accepted One China Two Systems, which I seem to have missed. Please see the details on the discussion page. Thanks! --Loren 05:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Don't you agree that the DPP will help spur the official split from mainland China? I think that the United States is clearly pro Taiwan independence. It's official stance has to be one of keeping the status quo, however. The KMT is slowly losing power and will eventually tumble to the wayside.--Oy Maatsulu 04:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Where are you getting the information you are posting on the WPI trivia? Some of it is not accurate. --Epsteada 22:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Source is several WPI students who have been tapped by Skull and who either decliend the offer or who then shared some facts, including an EE major several years ago. Xuanwu 23:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you keep removing links and information about the WPIwiki from the WPI page? Its a valuable resource that is highly taken advantage of at the school, and contains a lot of information that is completely irrelivent to Wikipedia but students and fans of WPI would be interested in, so it seems rather childish to keep removing that information. Robert Hafner 18:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

John, please make an attempt to follow the rules of Wikipedia. Stop reverting and replacing information on the WPI page out of your personal vandetta, and actually use the talk page for what its for. Numerous people have mentioned problems with your edits, and instead of just constantly reverting their changes please consider why they are doing it. If you feel that your information is that vital, and you feel you can use an NPOV (which, considering the reasoning behind your bashing of the WPIwiki is that you were banned from it, I believe may be somewhat difficult for you to do) then discuss it in the talk page and let the Wikipedio community come to a consensus instead of just trying to force your point of view. --Tedivm 05:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naruto (manga)[edit]

Please do not add external links, Wikipedia is not a link repository. Havok (T/C) 18:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And please do not remove links to extremely notable websites that are already there, i.e. NarutoFan. NarutoFan is the predominent fansite for Naruto. ~MDD4696 (talkcontribs) 23:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see my response to your comment about external links on Talk:Naruto. ~MDD4696 (talkcontribs) 22:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks (on Greeneyes)[edit]

Thank you for supporting the Greeneyes article. You didn't just do that, but you made me discover OO, which is neat and I'm reading ATM; Keep at the good work ;) Rvalles 05:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, first you said, "the spirit of WP:WEB still supports the inclusion of this article" then you said, "I claim no privileged knowledge of the law's spirit". Which is it? Further you said I have "yet to voice any opinion on the topic." I fail to understand this, when I clearly state my reasons for deletion of this comic, as well have having elaborated why your "first of/set trend" criterion is hopelessly subjective without independant corroboration thus unworkable. What is it that I haven't stated my opinion on?
brenneman(t)(c) 07:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I didn't forget to bold anything, it's not a vote it's a discussion so the closing admin can be expected to examine everyone's contribution carefully. I'm still not sure how me poiting out that you were referring to a criterion that you yourself had added is bad form on my part. If you had been up front about it, I wouldn't have had to bring it up. In fact, I'd say that "hey you're on ArbCom so watch it" is a much more serious character attack. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Similary, I did not mean to offend with my comments. We both stick by what we say, but the manner in which we said them could have used some tuning up. So, jolly good, shake hands, move along, nothing to see here?
brenneman(t)(c) 02:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Xuanwu, I'm going to revert your line on webcomic precedents to my one. It's just that, whereas I do agree with your analysis, that we shouldn't nominate anything for deletion purely because we don't like it, I think this rule is true for everything, and not just webcomics. For example, I don't think anyone would ever nominate artists like the Chapman Brothers, even though, they are in my opinion, the biggest waste of space ever. Whereas my line, about judging a webcomic by its length I feel is more relevent because originally with WP:COMIC this had been pretty much the only deciding factor. - Hahnchen 14:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (websites)[edit]

Hi, I've rewritten Wikipedia:Notability (websites), leaning heavily on Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) for insiration. I've tried to make the guidelines broader so that they can be applied to any form of web content, rather than focusing on specifics. The goal shouldn't be to set bars to take account of particular examples, but rather to outline existing policy and consensus at various places. As someone who has expressed an opinion on the guidelines in the past, Ayaka hopes you will read the new version and comment on the talk page. Steve block talk 12:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of Science[edit]

Please consider joining the proposed History of Science Wikiproject. --ragesoss 02:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must have missed it before that you're a Yale grad student too! What department?--ragesoss 02:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've figured it out; thanks joining my project. You should do some work on the Chinese science article; unless I'm mistaken, you already have some material you could re-edit for Wikipedia.--ragesoss 02:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikiproject[edit]

In an attempt to rebuild and strenghten the Yu-Gi-Oh! related Wikipedia communtiy, I am trying to re-start the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikiproject located here. Hope you join! Moe ε 23:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding Image:3li137.jpg and Image:3li132.jpg[edit]

Hello! I was going to tag them with the {{nosource}} tag, however you declare in both a source that is ambiguous. Can you clarify that in both images (and in others if you have uploaded others?). If you have scanned the images yourself, please specify you have done that. If you have found them in random sites around internet, please remember to link to the page containing the image so that any editor can go and check the original location of the image. Thanks! -- ReyBrujo 03:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure thing! Xuanwu 03:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vanity and POV edits to Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki[edit]

Please stop inserting unreliable/POV/Vanity information about how you got banned from a webcomics forum into the Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki article. Please read over the official policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability, including "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." Please understand that your personal feelings after being banned from a webcomic forum are not appropriate in an article. -- Dragonfiend 21:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a follower and fan of this comic and have been for a long time. I am afraid I placed the {{afdnewbies}} template on the discussion after seeing your statement asking people to come "vote". AfD is a discussion in search of consensus, not a vote, and votestacking requests can often be viewed askance, and actually damage the article's chances of survival... You may want to remove that, or qualify it with a statement that new users may not have their words weighted as heavily. That said, I did comment keep and hope that the AfD fails. Some references, outside of the comic itself, establishing notability would help greatly, I think. You can reply here, I watch threads I start. ++Lar: t/c 12:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Yes, that's why I mentioned in my post that only established Wiki editors should join in so as to avoid sock puppetry and that they should also explain why they think the article should be kept. I'll edit the post to make that more clear. Thanks! Xuanwu 01:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read WP:VANITY and WP:AUTO[edit]

Note that "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. ... Creating or editing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged." -- Dragonfiend 22:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Also, I see you've commented at User_talk:TigerShark#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FOkashina_Okashi that "Dragonfiend seems to have insisted on a relist." At no time did I suggest that your article be relisted, let alone "insist" upon it. You've also written that you view "this request [the one that I never made] as having been made in bad faith." Are you aware that your statement that you believe I'm acting in bad faith pretty clearly shows that you are violating the official policy of Wikipedia:Assume good faith? You also make reference to "her lack of civility." What was it that I said that you thought was uncivil? Simply pointing out that you've created a vanity article is not incivility. You may want to go correct your erroneous statements about my insistance on a relist, your assumption of bad faith, and your claim that I've acted with incivility. -- Dragonfiend 21:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • My assumption of bad faith with you is based on your past behavior, which has led me to conclude that you have some kind of personal vendetta against me and my contributions to Wiki. For example, marking the OO article as vanity when such a tag is a) redundant and b) does not have editorial concensus per the talk page. I also notice that while you've used the berifiability argument with other articles, this is the only one where you've gone and asked for a relisting because of it, giving evidence that such a request is not something you normally do, but quite likely a personal attack. To me, this shows you don't care what other editors think, you're going to do anything possible to delete a given article even if others disagree with you. That's why I now think of your edits as being in bad faith. (Note that I always assume good faith until given reason to think otherwise, which you have done.)
    • I do not object to your use of the word "vanity" (if you think it's vanity, go ahead and use that word). However, I object to how you have used it: repeating it over and over again in the same sentence as you have done is a clear sign of disrespect and hostility. For example, if I thought an article is poorly written and said, "this poorly written article is so poorly written that it should be deleted for being poorly written," that is a clear sign that there is more than a simple opinion that the article is poorly written: it indicates a personal dislike/hatred of the article that, in turn, means bad faith is at work. If you don't intend to come across this way (I know Snowspinner had a similar problem with the tone of your writing), then I'm sorry. But you need to think harder about how you write your posts, because right now you are coming across very uncivilly. I had a similar issue with Brenneman, but was able to resolve it with him. You, however, have acted in a far more bellicose manner. Xuanwu 22:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly, I need to point out that Dragonfiend did not insist on a relist. He only asked me why I closed it as "no consensus" and raised the issue of verifiability. I duly reviewed the discussion again, and I felt, in hindsight, that the issue of verifiability had not been discussed fully and that a relist was appropriate. Since the relist there have been five more comments, so I feel that this discussion has further to run and that closing it now would not be the correct course of action. Thanks TigerShark 22:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can understand that you feel that the raids /b/tards make on the various Habbo Hotels is important, but that information has been discussed on each of the talk pages on the two articles, and the editors have decided that they should not be mentioned for reasons on what Wikipedia is not. There is no way to give reliable sources on the Habbo Raids, and they have been felt to basically be self-promotion issues, that and the information is essentially a vandalism magnet (despite protection issues). Ryūlóng 21:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem does not exist in the verifiability problem, perse, but more of the fact that such raids don't really need to be mentioned in a serious encyclopedia that Wikipedia is striving to be. There have been long discussions about whether or not to include them in Talk:4chan and Talk:Habbo Hotel and both discussions have unequivocally stated that such information is not for Wikipedia, despite the wishes of /b/tards everywhere. Ryūlóng 03:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except I'm not a /b/tard (though I do visit /a/ every now and then to see what people are watching). My understanding is that when a lot of people get together and do something on such a large scale as the Habbo raids (and even go so far as to make artwork and a soundtrack for it), this is something notable, the same way GNAA's attacks on websites is considered notable. Is the discussion still open for comment? I'd say it probably isn't as notable for Habbo Hotel as it is for 4chan, since it's a 4chan orchestrated event. I put it in both since it affected both. But 4chan should mention it somewhere, at least as an example of notable acts its members have done. Xuanwu 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't saying that you were a /b/tard, it's just that information like that has been posted by /b/tards (as well as /b/radio, which was removed as well). I would think that the mention of "invasions of other online communities" is sufficient, as any sort of invasion (even the ones on Habbo) are hard to document with reliable sources, even if there are Google video and screenshot documentations. Ryūlóng 04:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose you're right. If a news outlet were to cover the raids, would that documentation issue change? Xuanwu 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't /b/tard an insult? This raid is more like limecat and belongs on Encyclopedia Dramatica. The wikipedia article describes that this kind of thing is supposed to go there. Anomo 06:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

/b/tard is sort of like the song "Yankee Doodle Dandy:" it started as an insult and was then adopted by the intended targets and turned into something more neutral or even fraternal in nature. Xuanwu 21:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well Habbo Hotel stuff is on this wiki:

  • - main article
  • - blocking in general
  • - the great raid
  • - section on civil rights compared to the habbo raid

Anomo 01:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but Dramatica is more a joke site than a factual place. A raid fo this size is as notable as anything GNAA has done, and GNAA's article documents their raids thoroughly. The same standard should therefore be applied here. Xuanwu 06:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

::They're more factual about some things than others. The raid is a pretty good report. Anomo 06:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC) Nevermind I looked at it more and the site sucks. Anomo 03:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey you folks. Here is a factual article about the raids. Playingviolin1 09:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not repost deleted content[edit]

This is in reference to your post of Rules of Make Believe. This article was deleted by community consensus during this AFD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of Make Believe. Please bear in mind that once an article has been deleted via the AFD process, it should generally not be recreated. The page will typically be deleted via the speedy deletion process. Instead, please review the official deletion policy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for further information. Thank you for your contributions! — NMChico24 01:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Music sections in senshi profiles[edit]

Since we try to use WikiProject Sailor Moon to keep all the Senshi profiles consistent, I mentioned the 'Music' sections you recently added at the project talk page. If they're to be in anyone's profile, they need to be in everybody's, and a change that big will require consensus. So please join the discussion! ^_^ --Masamage 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:3li151.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:3li151.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 file 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 meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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 files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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 Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 13:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The source is a screen shot, as noted. So the copyright issue is already taken care of. Xuanwu 08:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe it would be a good idea to perhaps temper some of your consistent edits to the page, esp. considering that several of them were (in the past) significant violations of WP:VANITY and WP:AUTO. Furthermore, however, there are still several significant facts that you insist on introducing incorrectly (primarily that Terra is still leading the VA Project, which is untrue as Totaku is the current primary leader (having instigated it through his recent posts on both the forum and blog) with Terra in something more of an advisory role).

I appreciate the fact, however, that you have already shown restraint in this regard and did not outright revert my edits to Ask the Professor, which I did feel very strongly as irrelevant and un-encyclopedic, and not actually contributing to the article itself. Indeed, I also appreciate your recent restraint on the Junichi description, as its current length no longer appears to grant him undue prominence as a character (contrast, for example, Kotone, or Onii-chan, who both had significantly less description than Junichi had)

--Pipian 18:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I disagree with your assessment of the VA Project. Terra is the current leader. Totaku and Konstantin are the advisors. Terra's already made it clear that since the VA Project was given to her by Saiai she retains control of it. Also, Totaku did not instigate it; he brought it up along with several other projects. It was Terra who formally started it anew and who is leading the recruitment of new VAs (such as Mr. Chibi). If Terra wanted to, she could easily dismiss Totaku from the project and do it herself. She chooses not to because she values his assistance. I'll have her set you straight on the matter. Xuanwu 02:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not an 'assessment.' It's fact and verifiable. See [1]. Just because she happens to have started the recheck thread does not prove that she is in charge. Furthermore, I have secondary evidence thruogh chat logs that also illustrate the fact that Totaku is in charge, not Terra. Totaku has been the one setting policy (e.g. the recheck and Professor needing re-auditioning) NOT Terra. --Pipian 15:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also have secondary evidence via chat logs that Terra is in charge. The Re-check and re-auditioning only happened because she agreed to Totaku's suggestions. Had she wanted to, she could have easily said "everyone is their old roles, end of story." She chose not to because that would have been rude. Also, chat logs aren't verifiable, so they can't be a basis for Wiki entries (even using forum posts is a little iffy, but without that we have nothing). What is verifiable is that Terra has taken the lead in posting material in the forum, making her leader of the project in that respect. I suggest a compromise: Terra is a judge, alongside you, Totaku, and Konstantin. We could say that power is divided evenly, with Terra returning to a leadership position from before. I think we can agree that Terra is a leader at the very least and that Totaku is also a leader, even if who is the leader is disputed. Again, I've asked Terra to talk to you on this to clarify what seems to be your misconception fo the leadership hierarchy. It would certainly be bad for the project if no one had a good idea of who was in charge! Xuanwu 23:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the current pOnju relevance issue, I'd say that finding out why TC is relevant is a higher priority. --Pipian 19:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi! If you have some time, could you please add a mention of the "Kyaosu" character to Chaos (Sailor Moon)? I don't think it needs as much detail as the Shadow Galactica article has, but there ought to be some coverage of Chaos-in-the-musicals, and I know next to nothing. Thanks in advance! And thanks for all your help with this sort of thing. There'd be very little hope for it without ya. :) --Masamage 19:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hess Article[edit]

John the Hess article looks really great. Nice work.


Thanks for uploading Image:3li137.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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 Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 15:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image is clearly not replaceable by a free alternative. I have removed the tag from the image. --Masamage 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article formatting[edit]

Please use the <ref></ref> tags instead of <sup></sup> tags when adding references. Also, the only words in subheadings that should have the first letter capitalized are the first word and proper nouns. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007[edit]

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 03:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007[edit]

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 05:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:3li132.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:3li132.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation 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 Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Malkinann 06:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007[edit]

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008[edit]

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:3li151.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:3li151.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I thought I had it bad...[edit]

Seriously, you should clean house on your User Talk page. It's nothing but busybodies trying to get you to repent for changes you wanted to make in the first place anyway. That's why I voided mine (twice in fact). The final straw was when some jerk threatened me with blocking, because this page arbitrarily was named not only a Featured Article, but it was a poorly placed redirect that went specific to general (contrary to the flow of what would be considered encyclopedic, btw one of Wiki's mandates) and I dared to try to move/rename it. Anyway, I couldn't get back into Professor Forum since search engines don't link there. Any reason why the Forums section of OO leads to Ponju instead? Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conflict of interest guideline[edit]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Dragonfiend (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So... let me getting this straight. Wanting to defend things you care about is somehow wrong? I have a book I wrote called the Mune Shinri, if I published info about that here, and someone outright deleted it, wouldn't it be okay for me to be pissed? Granted it may be stuff he created, but if this is notable, then leave it alone. The same goes for articles Xuanwu edits of course, so let's make a rule of thumb: DON'T DELETE THE WORKS OF OTHERS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS! Period. It must have something seriously wrong with it (in my case, it would be that it would likely be an orphaned article), and even then, above all else, the point is to revise. Same with ridding entire sections, someone has a cow when they create a Charter Magic types section for the Old Kingdom series, and have a comprehensive list of all spells used (no, this didn't happen to me, but the example stands because the Old Kingdom has a great deal of extra info including entire bestiaries which can be made) and someone chooses it because regardless of how well cited, the article is too long.Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:Post-5-1142052161.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Post-5-1142052161.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009[edit]

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Xuanwu! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,414 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Michael Sokal - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · AP · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:G-on-main.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:G-on-main.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

No evidence of real-world notability.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. J Milburn (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

A tag has been placed on Sublunary (webcomic) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MattParker 119 (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
Hi Xuanwu! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia 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 editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]