User talk:Stormbay

• Did you see the question mark? Do you follow me around to insult my editing? The tag was valid; the rest I included to "bemuse" you and other editors. Stormbay (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you incapable of giving a civil answer to a civil question? How am I following you when I edited the article before you did? And the citation that I added had a link to the Independent's article, so I don't understand how anyone could think it was a trade mag, question-marked or not, unless they were basing their editing on guesswork rather than evidence.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I have had a good deal of your incivility over the years. Your "civil question" was phrased in your usual style. By its nature it is not civil. I recognize civil when I read it. Enough said! Stormbay (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places in Manitoba (and thus all of its subcategories, including Category:Hamlets in Manitoba) is already a subcategory of Category:Geography of Manitoba, so hamlets and villages and rural municipalities and the like should not be added directly to Category:Geography of Manitoba in addition to their appropriate settlement-type category. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No more Category:Geography of Manitoba cats unless no such cat exists...I will probably remember.  :-) Stormbay (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not tag empty categories for C1 after emptying them. The

• I have to agree. There does not seem to be any reason for your removal of these categories other than a desire to delete them. You appear to be trying to do an end run around the proper procedures for doing so. Why you would do such a thing is not important, what is important is that you stop doing it and instead use CFD for categories you believe should not exist.
  talk) 18:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The removal of the categories was the end product of a large clean-up of rural municipalities in Manitoba to make all the naming of them consistent...some of the Categories were simply wrong and it seemed sensible to remove them all and then someone could create a properly named category for each of the R.M.'s if someone felt it was necessary. Take a look at my editing record over the last seven years and you will notice that I don't (knowingly) request deletions without some reason. Your point on procedure is noted. I'll leave the rest alone. Replace anything that offends the criterion that applies. I find that most often less than nothing is accomplished at sites such as
  discussion. I will carry on with other editing that is much more interesting than trying to clean-up a rather useless (my opinion) set of categories. I hope you both will agree, after checking me out further, that I was probably well intentioned but woefully lacking in respect for/knowledge of the continually evolving proliferation of rules. Be bold is one that I do follow. (The other involves trying to use a civil tone with everyone. I hope I was successful in this instance. I tried, anyway). Happy editing! Stormbay (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Keith Wann 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/Keith Wann 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.

--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 16:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To whome this may cconcen Hi my name is lawrence joseph black and I was doing some family history and came acorossed this joseph laurnce black I am sure I am related to him if u could give me some info it would be much appreciated thank my email is [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljblack35 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal to delete/upmerge Category:2000s animated television series of Georgia (country) and Category:2010s animated television series of Georgia (country) Hugo999 (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

The article Robert Barr (schoolteacher) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails

WP:NPERSON, few reliable sources ([1]

)

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. DrStrauss talk 15:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Jacques Babie 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 real person or group of people that does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jacques Babie 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/Jacques Babie 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. Kirbanzo (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Benjamin Zimmerman 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/Benjamin Zimmerman 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. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Natalia Karenka Parra Sierra 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/Natalia Karenka Parra Sierra 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. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stormbay. 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

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]

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hello, Stormbay. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stephen Lett 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/Stephen Lett 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.

Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]