User talk:Razimus

Hello Razimus, and

If you'd like to test what Wikipedia can do, check out the sandbox - just type and save the page and your text will appear. That's the beauty of a Wiki.

For more information check out our

I hope you'll enjoy your time here, but be warned, it can become addictive! Feel free to message me, I'm more than happy to help. As an added tip, sign any message you post so users know that you've said it. To do so is delightfully simple, just use the wikicode ~~~~.

Once again, welcome!

Hello. I also agree that Ultima VII is "the most badass game ever made in the history of the universe". However, regrettably adding one person's opinion is problematic:

1. We try to only add statements from prominent people or journalists, because the chances are these peoples' opinions have some sort of influence.
2. We don't publish
   original research
   . Which is to say, every statement should have some sort of source, preferrably a reliable one. If you have a source for this claim (ie, it appeared in some good source rather than just being thrown here), and it appears that this mention is otherwise worthy of inclusion, then it might be worth including.

Sorry if this sounds like a humourless approach. Regrettably, we're trying to make a serious encyclopaedia here, not a collection of remarks on how much the favourite game from each of rules. (Mostly because our Final Fantasy articles would be absolutely unreadable if we did that! Just think of the implications...)

Don't be disappointed, just try a little bit of seriousness. It helps. Trust me. Happy editing. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noted you removed the source to the Ultima VII information in Lord British article. Please don't. As things appear to be, the link redirects elsewhere now and doesn't point to the correct document; however, the whole purpose of the citation is to show that "at the indicated time, this link had fact that verified this information". Citations do not need to care how to access the information now, though it'd be obviously nicer. It's crucial that the references are not removed. The correct course of action in situations like this is to add something like (Inaccessible as of xxxx-xx-xx) after the template, or add citation parameters |archivedate=xxxx-xx-xx|archiveurl=http://whatever.archive.org/blah... which point to an Internet Archive copy. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A

I have nominated Meaburn Staniland, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaburn Staniland. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ironholds 12:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Razimus, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

1. Preston Nichols - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Peter Moon (author) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources. No evidence of notability. probably violates BLP to call him a "conspiracy theorist" without solid sourcing

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

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. Scott Mac 17:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

]

Nomination of

Preston Nichols

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Preston Nichols is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preston Nichols until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Closedmouth (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]