ResearcherQ

Welcome!

Hello, ResearcherQ, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Benny Goodman. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see doing lots of editing for musicians, who have a history of commercial recordings. What's the best example page where this is done well? I assume it'll be a table, and have room for title, year, collaborators, tracks on which they've participated, label and number, commentary, and so on. What's a good example? Here are two sites that vary wildly, which I'd like to bring into some canonical form this coming week (as the musicians will be staying here in my home, so I can make sure to get it right, firsthand): Zuill Bailey -- a mess, and Navah Perlman -- shows some of the details to be represented. ThanksResearcherQ (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're asking for examples of how to write an article on something, looking at good and featured articles will help. The Good and Featured articles are the best articles we have on Wikipedia, and they go through extreme scrutiny to get the designation. These would be a good start, and if you have any further questions you may wish to either use the helpme template again, or ask on the Help desk. gwickwire^talk_editing 18:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I wasn't looking for examples of how to write a good article. I should have used the specific term: discography. What's a fine example of a classical music discography? I think the best model I've seen is Kronos Quartet discography -- should I re-use it as my model, or is there something better? Same question for filmographies: what's the best working model? Thanks in advance ResearcherQ (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I owe you a few replies on my talk page when I have the time to give them the full attention they deserve, I did want to bring your immediate attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies. Perhaps that will help. I would ask this question on the Project talk page, you'll probably (hopefully!) get more responses there. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Geez, thanks -- nah, you don't owe me anything! I've been all over the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies pages, and can't find what I'm looking for. Maybe all good for 50 Cent or Beyoncé, but not appropriate for doing a thorough classical or jazz discography. I suspect there are Wikipedia pages where this is done superbly -- but I seem to just be stumbling around trying to find them at this point. So, I was hoping someone would say: "use this as your 'best practices' model". Again, this is the best I've stumbled on, Kronos Quartet discography, but I didn't want to put in a bunch of time cloning it, only to discover I'd made a poor newbie choice. Thanks in advance -

ResearcherQ (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand this, RQ. If what you need is someone to say: "use this as your 'best practices' model", then by all means use the Kronos Quartet discography as your bpm. Your "stumblings" around the Discographies Project and several musical articles have already made you more of an expert on the subject than most contributors – to include myself. Are you afraid of it all being a waste of your time? There is a saying on Wikipedia: Be bold! Best of everything to you and yours! – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 08:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- what a great line: "Are you afraid of it all being a waste of your time?" Yes! I'm not concerned about my expertise in areas, but very concerned of wasting time doing FORMATTING in a certain way, when there's a better/preferred way to have done it. I consider myself very much an amateur at "best practices" in formatting, and presumed there was a more efficient path than "stumbling around" -- that is, to ask. Still asking -- looking for a strong "USE THIS" (of course, choose wisely, cuz once you point me there, I'll replicate it hundreds of times). It's the idea of "replicating something that's sub-optimal hundreds of times" that is my primary concern. Thanks for hearing me out -- ResearcherQ (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Pleasure's all mine, RQ! Here's the thing (and this is something that all of us have to get used to)... Wikipedia is a place where anybody at any time can make edits to our work. Hopefully those edits are improvements. And therein lies the real beauty of this encyclopedia. Other contributors build on our work to make a better body of reference. When seen this way, virtually nothing we do is a waste of time. You do your best with what you have. Get in there and don't concern yourself that it might be a waste of your time. Nor should you worry about breaking Wikipedia. If what you do isn't perfect, then expect somebody to come in and try to make it better. This is not a one-man show, RQ, it's a community effort of staggering proportions. That's not always easy to get used to; however, it can be a most rewarding personal experience! Happy trails! – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 13:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"...a most rewarding personal experience" -- I concur -- thanks for your patience, Paine. Observation: I'm taking 700-level-graduate courses at the local university, thus getting involved in class/group projects with the others in class. And, I'm 3 times their age. So, it's interesting to be deeply immersed in how they work (as opposed to their professors) -- and Wikipedia is almost always their first reference, live, in the midst of a class lecture or discussion. Its quality & directness have gained a level of vital importance for the next generation, despite whatever qualms their teachers, mentors, or ancestors may have. ResearcherQ (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Glowing words that plunge into the heart of Wikipedia. That's everything it tries to be. Thank you beyond words for those words. – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 00:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

ResearcherQ, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi ResearcherQ! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm there -- thanks! ResearcherQ (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Semyon Bychkov

Philippe Quint (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Violinist

St Mary High School, Jamaica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Percival Spencer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

all fixed -- thanks - ResearcherQ (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:General Tree with 24 Nodes.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:General Tree with 24 Nodes.jpg, which you've attributed to Udo Borkowski. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

" or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org." Thanks, Diannaa -- I've just forwarded the e-mail from Udo to permissions-en -- ResearcherQ (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, ResearcherQ. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Jayron32 01:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, ResearcherQ. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Welcome

Hello, ResearcherQ! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thanks for this -- very well presented! I want to be adopted! ResearcherQ (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There are four users I can remember right now whom I suggest you can talk about adoption - Feel free to contact any of them directly ro be adopted by them - User:Go Phightins!, User:Ryan Vesey, User:Worm That Turned and User:Rcsprinter123. All of them may not be available, so you might have to check which of them are. ALternately, you can also look into the adoption page or the list of adopters for finding the person to mentor you through Wikipedia and its policies.

I hope this helped!

Cheers!

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Q. Walker.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding your AfC, I think Wikipedia:Citing sources could be of use. Wikipedia:Citation templates also appears to be helpful. Struck my last sentence as I found it wasn't very relevant or particularly helpful. I'd missed the references section.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe Stephen Hawking happens to be using Journals as both references and publications. I am not sure if thats exactly what you want, but it's worth looking into. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, that link on OrenBochmans's page was red because you did not add Wikipedia: before the Adopt. Because Adopt a user is not an article, it does not belong in the article space. Hence the namespace has to be mentioned. See Wikipedia:Namespace for more info. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Now I feel bad -- I should have asked you to adopt me (but you weren't on the page of adopters seeking adoptees). Thanks so much for all -- ResearcherQ (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You shouldnt. Its absolutely fine, and I am not available for quite some time now either. So I would not have been able to adopt either. You can still mail me if you've anything to ask.

Also, enable Twinkle from your Preferences (Gadgets). That, and ProveIt are one of the most useful scripts to have here. The rest of the scripts are quite optional, but these two make things a lot better.

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the Stephen Hawking page, but didn't see what I was looking for. What it did have some publications that were referenced so that commentary could be provided on the publication. I'm looking for publications as references. For example, in the Walker article, the claim in the opening is expertise in VoIP. It seems the reference should be the book written for Cisco. Yet, that book appears as a publication, not as a reference. Should it simply appear in both places (that is, the whole citation is fully replicated)? Thanks - ResearcherQ (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that the best practise will be to replicate it fully. That seems to be the most appropriate of all possible options. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Also, since you are a computer programmer, I should also be telling you that there is a lot more you can do here than just create articles. Making scripts is a very useful job here, and if your programming is as good as your general efficiency, you can make a lot of great Bots and scripts. Do tell whether you'll stick with article creation for now, or would you like to try some hands at programming or other stuff too. [Either way, the community is going to be benefitted] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for asking. Programming probably won't happen for me here for quite a while -- I feel much more of a need to make Wikipedia deeply helpful and well written. I've been fortunate to have a broad life of deep experiences in art, literature, music, mathematics, physics, biology, and so on -- and I've been keeping a long list for the past few months of topics with embarrassing quality (that is, I came to Wikipedia in search of something particular, and it was missing or wrong or sloppy). For example, one of the world's great painters (truly, my opinion of course), was Joaquin Sorolla, and I've been gratified to start whittling away at the ineptitudes of the English article on him (although the Spanish-language es.Wikipedia pages on him are in much better shape). Sitting here in the midst of writing an academic article on coalescent DNA modeling (waiting for replies from my collaborators). Delighted to be "diving in" -- and thank you again for your patience and kindness -- ResearcherQ (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought so. I agree that your work as an article creator here will be of a much higher quality than anything else, but I felt obliged to ask anyways. Since you'll be focusing on articles, do you have any particular articles in mind except the two you're working on, and the one you mentioned? If you don't, Struck. I really should read before I reply, and certainly sleep before its morning already. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC) I really suggest also looking into some from the Wikipedia:Vital articles after you've tried a couple of articles. We have awfully bad coverage of the most important topics on this encyclopedia, and some of them might interest you enough [I personally find it a shame that Sir Isaac Newton is not even a GA class article]. Also, WP:TAFI also has a similar aim, if you might be interested. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Woo -- Wikipedia:Vital articles) is fascinating (sorry you lost me for awhile there). So, the question is to work from truly poor starting places (11.Start-Class article Antônio Carlos Jobim) or to struggle with the book-quality mental effort to make Newton better (why not just go read a good book (or three) on Newton -- I guess I'm an expert in one area, his tenure as Royal Treasurer and pursuer of counterfietors). For now, I'll stick to areas where 1) I'm already an unimpeachable expert, or 2) I came to Wikipedia for knowledge in areas where I'm a dummy -- and failed, and will educate myself by improving those areas. Sleep - ResearcherQ (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure. All the best with working with those articles! Do let me know when you finish them!! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ResearcherQ. You have new messages at OrenBochman's talk page.
Message added 23:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BO | Talk 23:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ResearcherQ. You have new messages at Talk:Buck Institute for Research on Aging.
Message added 01:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BO | Talk 01:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, ResearcherQ. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ariconte (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

GTRI FAC

Andrew, do you have a to-do list of things to complete in order to re-submit GTRI as a FAC? I'd like to help you. Here's why I ask... it's the only article about a non-profit Institute that's in the "good-article" list. I'd like to help you bring it up to the highest level, then use it as a model. Here's one place where it could used as a model: Buck Institute for Research on Aging. Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's ready for another run through FAC, but I have one open for G. Wayne Clough (WP:FAC/G. Wayne Clough/2)... Was actually planning on renominating GTRI sooner or later, so if you're willing to help, we can do it this week and conominate it. There's no guarantee we'll get through the first couple tries but you just have to keep pushing. I'd also like to point out another article that is for a quasi-university attached institute, SRI International - it's GA and I've put a lot of work into it. Disavian (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I really appreciate the SRI reference, as it's "closer" to the Buck Institute in scope *and* locality.

What can I do on either of these to help you? Maybe just a full read and light edit with a fresh set of eyes? Thanks in advance -- ResearcherQ (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, a pair of fresh eyes would definitely help. I'd like to nominate both for FAC sooner than later (starting with GTRI), and I'll let you know when I do - ideally this weekend. You're welcome to sign up as a co-nom on those. Disavian (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ugh -- I can't really get to it until Monday. I have these three people as houseguests all weekend (a good thing!): Navah Perlman, Zuill Bailey, and Philippe Quint. I'll actually spend some time working with them to get their Wikipedia articles in better shape. Proceed without me as you need - back on Monday -- ResearcherQ (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Have fun! FAC is not a fast process, you don't have anything to worry about. Disavian (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to mention: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georgia Tech Research Institute/archive2. Disavian (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ResearcherQ. You have new messages at OrenBochman's talk page.
Message added 17:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I dont want to be trying to run over on your adoption, but you did seem like the person who would like to learn more from reading through. So I thought maybe I should provide you with these links to give you all the basic reading material you'll probably require for adoption. The specifics will vary based on your adopter, but these are more-or-less the main stuff you should be knowing about. This is the link - User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Lessons

Hope this helps you,

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Re. I've been having some very odd connectivity problems.

A couple of points

My research on the adoption program indicates that a number of these some of these lessons lead to "high risk" behavior and lead new users/mentors to drop out during the course or soon after graduation.

I'd be glad to provide some lessons + tests similar to those listed less the problematic ones. The course would take about 2-4 weeks to complete including test and assignments. But I recommend to avoid User:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Lessons for the time being.

Secondly I believe that many of these lessons would be wasted on you. As a user you fit a social role called "The Opportunist" defined as a user whose broad experience elsewhere enables him to intuit most of what regular users would have to learn one way or another.

Also in many cases the lessons are supposed to slow down new users so they have a better chance to get acclimatized - I think this would be counter productive and so I prefer a more hands on approach in your case.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by OrenBochman (talk • contribs) 23:38, 7 May 2013‎

Hello, ResearcherQ. You have new messages at OrenBochman's talk page.
Message added 23:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aubrey de Grey may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, ResearcherQ. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Jayron32 22:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

June 2013

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to June 26, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 20:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Dependence receptor, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oakforest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Q. Walker concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Q. Walker, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Q. Walker

Hello ResearcherQ. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "John Q. Walker".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Q. Walker}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ResearcherQ. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 14:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, ResearcherQ. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 14:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ResearcherQ. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ResearcherQ. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, ResearcherQ. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)