Hello Jason, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;
By the way, you don't need to sign your articles - your user name will be shown in the page history automatically. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!Angela 02:38, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
Jason, Kiehl and Hawkins are two fictional 1st Class passengers who, at one time, were popular in Titanic tales. Kiehl was a history teacher, from Washington D.C., and Hawkins was a flamboyant, Spanish-American War veteran. I find it odd that you haven't heard of them. I guess they aren't as popular now as they used to be. Anyway, I hear that they will soon be making a comeback. An author (who's name I can't remember for the life of me) will be including the men in an upcoming novel about the Titanic, set for release around the 100th anniversary of the sinking. If I ever remember the name of the author, I will let you know.
Please visit these pages and post a comment in support with an example of how this is true. Thanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Gamaliel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon 24.147.97.230 17:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jason. Sorry about the delayed response, but my Wikitime has been seriously cut short lately.
Of course, I'm thrilled that you found and used my template. I've been hoping to use it for some time now, but haven't been able to.
ClockworkSoul 01:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It would be rather simple to fix the redirect of Handicapping and I have just created a redirect for Handicap Theory to the lowercased Handicap theory. However, I do not think that Handicapping would be appropriate as a redirect to the article you requested it redirect to. The references I have hitherto seen and the associations hitherto had with the word handicapping was in reference to the practice and method of sports scoring used to advantage less-talented or less-able players when competing against talented/able players through the use of a head start, or a point advantage. Much to my surprise, no article on handicapping (even this definition) existed until you started it yesterday. Thus, as a compromise, I would like to see an article on Handicapping regarding the more prevalent sports scoring method/practice, but in order to assuage the need you have to reference the evolutionary phenomenon of Handicap theory, it would be more than reasonable to have a disambiguation disclaimer at the top of the article stating something to the effect of: If you are seeking information regarding the biological theory, please see Handicap theory. Would that compromise be acceptable? I'll be watching your talk page, in addition to mine and the Requested Moves page for your response. Lacking that, I plan to go ahead with the compromise I propose. —ExplorerCDT 02:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hey you reverted out my contribution in Human evolution!!
Nowhere in all the pages about human evolutino is there a discussion on the point Imade. Dont you think that the point where we began to 'think' is relevant? the point where we stopped being 'clever apes' and started to have 'humanity'? Because I certainly do!!!
Please justify censoring this discussion, because I see no reason not to include it, whatever happened to NPOV ?
Hmm, whe bit I added wasnt 'original research'. That which I wrote is the current mainstrean consensus, read a few magazines liek Scientific American., Nature, and New Scientist.#
As as result of your revert, wikipedia still doesnt have a discussion about humanity, when it occurred, and how. I think your position that its not relevant is mind boggling,. Its the single most significant paradigm shift ever to accur to our species!!!!
Thanks for uploading Image:Neanderthal 1 langle.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Tagishsimon (talk) 00:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ok. Ya wanna vfd my Facts of Reproduction page. Great. I want you to, because you aint gonna kill, ya only gonna make me stronger by forcin me re-write that thin super-fine and high-level academic quality. I thank you for that. You drive me to higher 'n higher quality that way. That is a good thin for Civil-i-zation. Now, you know I am already workin' on some other pages (and this pseudo-Appalanchean voice I write in is a pathetic cover-up for my careless typing, which I do right in my web browser to save me time). Shit! Just look at my work and ask yourself, am I hurtin' ye or am I hepin ya? Huh? Special:Contributions/Amorrow . If I make a mistake, eviscrerate me. I sure got it comin'. Just please continue communicating. Thank yew. Amorrow 01:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jason Potter - I see where you participated in the matter concerning Abraham Lincoln's sexuality that was discussed and voted upon on Talk:Abraham Lincoln. There has been a lengthy and exhausting discussion surrounding this exact same issue at Talk:Elvis Presley and the archived Talk pages as well. Because this has the potential to create a new standard for what is acceptable sources, I thought that you might want to be aware of it.
If the policy consensus you and others arrived at on the Abraham Lincoln issue is set aside in the Presley article it will result in new ones for countless others. I think your group discussion that arrived at a determination of what constituted a proper source should be defined by the Wikipedia community and set as firm policy which would go a long way in helping to substantially reduce the tiresome and repeated edit wars. Thank you for your interest. Please note I have left the same message for others who worked on this matter. Ted Wilkes 20:16, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Like you cannot guess. I have thought a bit about your evaluation of my involvement as a "game". Well, if you look at my overall contributions in articles, rather than the multi-user dugeon (MUD) that goes on in the duscussion tabs, you might think differently. Now that Amorrow is blocked, probably forever, you will not be able to monitor my further work, but just check out the Special/Contribs thing and re-evaluate, if you have the time to. As my home page is also blocked, you would have to use non-Wiki email, which is amorrow@earthlink.net, and get through several levels of spam filter, but keep it non-HTML and simple and that should work. Note that there is a non-null discussion tab on the recent vfd of interest. It is mostly about formalities, but you might want to think about it: "How does the vfd process differ from a lynch mob?". 165.247.212.93 02:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How can descriptions that are from an article in Wikipedia about Christopher Hitchens be bias? In fact, I believe it is relevant to the article to let people know that Hitchens is not only an atheist, someone who does not believe in God, but that he is also anti-religion. If Hitchens is going to be such a big factor to the article then his bias should be known within the article. Anything less would be biased. Dwain 19:11, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Please send him some sauerkraut with my compliments ;-) Karmafist 14:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since you voted in the last vote-for-deletion, I thought I would mention there is a revote now going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janelle Pierzina 2, due to complaints of the first vote. So, you are welcome to particpate again if you wish. --rob 23:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After some good discussion on the talk for WP:PRIM with User:Marskell, I've begun work on cleaning up category:Early hominids. Please come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates/category rework to weigh in your opinion on what direction to take. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When reverting vandalism, I always find it best to simply go back to the version in the history I want to restore, click "Edit this page" and ignore the warning about editing an out-of-date version, rather than manually reversing the vandal's edits. For instance, in this edit [1] the vandal was very subtle about breaking all the creationist links (so subtle it's lasted almost a month). The first method would reverse everything he did on that edit, while the second might only catch the obvious difference as in this case. Vandals can be quite sneaky. — Laura Scudder | Talk 07:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I answered your comments on talk:Jesus (see part6)
(Mullerb 23:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
How exactly are my claims dubious? Have you read Gould's article I linked to in the talk page? If you do I think you'll agree my claims are not dubious but reflect scientific consensus. It is vital to distinguish between the fact of evolution (i.e. organisms change with time to adapt to their environment - "descent with modification") and the mechanism that EXPLAINS WHY organisms adapt to their environment over time. The primary mechanism that does this is the theory of natural selection (there is also, of course, sexual and artificial selection)... Mikkerpikker 21:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thanking everyone who helped me majorly in getting Dinosaur to the main page, especially on New Year's Day! It was not a one man job & I really appreciate the help you guys have done. Happy New Year! Spawn Man 02:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. I don't get the thingy on your user page, kinda weird.... :)[reply]
please consider this[2] Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you left a post on my talk page for help with the primal sludge of Neanderthal. I'm glad I'm thought of as knowledgable. I always find that the tasks seem so much easier when you lay them all out on a big list. I'll help with what I can, but I want you to do most of the work, partly because, this will be your pet project, just like Dinosaur was mine, so I don't get any, if a little, credit for it at all & so that one day, you may be able to write many FA's. Also, I want to take a load off after the dinosaur project. You must prepare yourself for a few things however: Once it gets to the main page, people are going to get hold of it & probably wreck it. You're going to have to do long hours, (I did a 6 hour session one time on Dinosaur!). You'll never think the article is good enough, because you'll always be it's biggest critic & finally, you may fail. You will have arguments with creationists no doubt, & maybe a few know it alls. You will probably go through a few mental stages: Stage1, The unsure stage, you're unsure & don't know what to do. you seek help from anybody you can. Stage2, The "getting it" stage, you finally realise how to stand on your own feet. Stage3, the hard worker stage, your whole life will revolve around this article. Stage4, the frustrated stage, by this time, the article will probably be on FAC & people will be asking you to do things left right & centre & you feel overwhelmed. This is probably when I & other collaberators come in handy. Stage5, the crazy stage, This is nearing the end of the FAC. People are changing the article & it's looking insane. The end is near, but you don't know if you'll make it. You snap at people who disaggree with you. From here it can go to the Doom & gloom stage, your article has failed its FAC, you're determined, but feeling defeated & you lose confidence & interest. Or it can go to the maintaining but happy stage, your article has gone through & will appear on the main page. Although it is on the waiting list, the article can still be un-awarded its FA staus if it has changed too much. You're constantly mopping up newbie editor's mistakes & you can't wait until the article is on the main page. This stage never really ends, as you feel obliged to maintain the article. Forever.....
And that's just your preparation!
List:
That's it for now, but I'll think up more. Hope this helps a bit. Spawn Man 02:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jason, Just saw you withdrew your RfA. It can be really disenheartening to have a failed RfA, but I hope you'll keep editing and working on Wikipedia articles, 'cause you're on the right track. Take care, :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in what you said about bots not performing any meaningful edits to articles. The purpose of a bot is not to redefine the encyclopedia. Bots exist to do repetitive simple tasks that would be difficult or silly for humans to do. These tasks include things like template substitution, updation of cleanup tags, reversion, warning, and reporting of simple vandalism, and creation of daily afd logs. Typically these tasks are done on a large scale after substantial effort on the part of the bot maker. An extensive approval process is required to start a new bot. I understand that it can be frustrating to have bot edits appear in a page history or flag your new messages button, but I *hope* you realize that something meaningful is going on.
I dunno...does that clarify it a bit? I understand that they can be annoying, but they're not trying to (or at least my bot isn't =D). αChimp laudare 21:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Savanna Theory (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot4 07:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with Savanna Theory. The article was even peer reviewed. Ryūlóng 07:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check the history of this page. As I predicted: it was only a matter of time before some apologist put this article up for deletion. The article has already been merged, as per a vote on the page it was merged on. Since you have contributed absolutly nothing to this article, I would suggest leaving it at that. Travb (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a posting on the Talk:Attachment Therapy talk page that I think should be deleted as it contains material that is not civil and that may be slanderous. I would delete it, but am not sure if that is allowed. I'd appreciate your taking a look at the posting in the "Time For Civility/Self-Promotion is against Wiki policy" at the end of the talk page. If you think it should be deleted I will do so or you can. If you would respond to my talk page I'd appreciate it DPeterson 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The post reads:
Something in the blurb really should address the fact that there are many cons out there taking advantage of very desperate parents trying to help their adoptive kids.
Thanks.DPeterson 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you know there is a tight poll going on at the moment on the WW2 page. Would you be so kind as to vote on this. By the way, I have found your approach to be reasonable at all times. Thank you. Wallie 23:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've been deleting references that I tagged for citation. I don't like it when Christians delete my edits to protect the pages they want to protect, so I try to be cautious in deleting others' edits. I don't expect you to be so timid, but that's where I'm coming from. Jonathan Tweet 17:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ymous is a bit of a nutcase. He made a RFM or RFA against a whole bunch of people in the Evolution article claiming we deleted his discussion points and edits, when in fact he never did one thing on there. He's got an agenda, and trying to reason with him is nice, but probably pointless. Orangemarlin 21:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Neander Valley Map.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. — MECU≈talk 00:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the Talk:Evolution page, you said that only 0.14% of life and earth scientists reject evolution. Could you please provide a reference for that statistic? -- MrRedact 06:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the citation! That should be a useful statistic if I get into another debate with the Jehovah's Witnesses who come around now and then. MrRedact 02:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rencently, you logged your disapproval with the removal of the following text from the creation/evolution controversy.
| “ | Evolution is sometimes expanded by creationists to include such things as the Big Bang Theory, abiogenesis, and the formation of stars. For example, Kent Hovind defines evolution to include the creation of time, space, matter, the creation of planets and stars from dust, spontaneous generation of life from matter, the creation of reproduction in life forms, and major changes of life forms such as speciation.<rref>Hovind 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHovind2006 (help)</rref> However, although the word evolution is used as part of several astronomical terms such as stellar evolution, none of these are implied by the term evolution alone.<rref>One such expansion is rebutted here</rref> | ” |
I added them back in, here and also added another related section here.
These two sections may not fit well for this particular section, and I invite you to contribute and improve these sections, or they may be removed by others. StudyAndBeWise 04:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your intelligent discussion (no pun intended ;-) of the following:
I vaguely knew that not all ID supporters accept common descent, but I never was aware of who thought what. Intellectual laziness on my part, I guess. --Uncle Ed 15:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC has been filed to determine whether or not the position of the Jesus Seminar should be included in Lazarus and Dives. Your comments would be most welcome. --Joopercoopers 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:C57630~Joey-McIntyre-Posters.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to contest a speedy deletion tag, put {{hangon}} on the page. Draft pages should be created within your userspace or offline. Shadowblade 00:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ColleenMcCullough Antony and Cleopatra.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 '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 non-free media 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the discussion here. WLU (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you had made several corrections to my entry on the Constitution of the Roman Republic. Is there any kind of community of ancient history junkies that edit entries?RomanHistorian (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Laferr3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Zinj3.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) 22:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading File:Cavehand.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jason Potter. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jason Potter. 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)[reply]
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Hello, Jason Potter. 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)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harlem Globetrotters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Globetrotter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article Antony and Cleopatra (novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Avilich (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:ColleenMcCullough Antony and Cleopatra.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ~ GB fan 12:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of transitional fossils until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
