User talk:Ahering@cogeco.ca

archive 1

I noticed some of your images have labels hardcoded in the image - do you have the originals without labels, so that they can be altered or translated? —Random832 20:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I discarded the originals. I discontinued the practice, mind you. I now just put the editable text underneath. --Achim (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moin! I moved the article from Technical University at Brunswick to Technical University of Braunschweig in accordance with the naming conventions for universities recommended at WikiProject Germany. This is because these names are usually the common English names for the schools. For the Braunschweig school, it fits the "School of city" styling; arguably, it could even be moved from Technical University of Braunschweig to simply University of Braunschweig. The Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik, however, would not meet the criteria recommended in the naming conventions. It is not definitively known by its association with Berlin, and it does not have a predominantly accepted English translation. Therefore, I agree it is best kept at its official title. Olessi (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. --Achim (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, there are far too many images relative to the amount of text, and the content is not supported by reliable third party publications. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elkman! I will insert my answers in italics next to your questions.

• I noticed you had a question on Joint (building). I haven't had enough time to deal with my requests lately, but I took a quick look at the article. There are several external links noted. Did you use those links as sources for the article? If not, what did you use for sources?
• I have been in the firestop business since the early eighties and I know the subject matter without requiring outside sources to direct me. I located the outside sources to corroborate what I already knew and it matched.

• I imagine there are engineering texts and magazine article about building joints, and I'm sure you read them for your work.
• Yes. I wrote some of them. I have formulated products to seal joints. I have fire tested them successfully, licensed off some of this technology and the products are being actively traded in the marketplace right now. I have also made a living of contracting the work, as in having tendered, secured and executed this sub-contract work on construction sites in Europe and North America. I can tell you how much a lineal foot of joint sells for and what it costs to put it in. I have also had products specified by architects so that I could tender the work based on my products. I have also instructed installers on the proper installation techniques for this work. I have also worked on governmental specifications and regulations in this realm. So, I don't need others to tell me about this as I know it like the back of my hand. Still, since it's all about verifiability, I have sought, found and inserted appropriate references. I don't get what else could be cited where in this because if one actually takes the time to look at the referenced material to the point of comprehension, no questions remain. I looked through the text and could not find what else would need back-up without having it look ridiculous.
• Basically, I think the article would be more useful if the sources were cited inline. On the other hand, Coccyx Bloccyx (talk · contribs) is inserting tags and leaving vague messages about the disagreements he has about content, without providing any sound reasoning as to what could be improved. I don't think the {{cleanup}} tag belongs on there at all.--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• That is why I put in for a medcab case, since I did not have a response from you and one other admin I asked about it. The article was reviewed by yourself as well as at least one other admin. The delete nominator is simply refusing to state what specifically he thinks requires further back-up. We have a parallel treatise from Underwriters Laboratories, we have no shortage of peer-reviewed Wiki-internal hyperlinks, we have links to manufacturers selling products that fit the bill and we have a subject-related certification listing issued by UL too. We also have a commons gallery that shows what this looks like and we have a report on a real fire, where they did not to this right and it caused a big problem. All these sources are bona fide, reliable, third-party information that I certainly did not invent. What else could you possibly add to the existing over-kill?? What is most troubling to me is the behaviour of the unsuccessful nominator here. There must be a pattern here. He not only wiped out the questions I asked but also those of someone else who took issue with his behaviour. There are more procedures on Wiki than you can shake a stick at and I find it confusing and tedious to make sense of it all. That is why I asked for help and I appreciate the time you took to look into the matter. Any further assistance would be appreciated. --Achim (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion with the other user who was mediating, I've decided to open this case. I'm just letting you know that I've accepted it, and I am reviewing the arguments and articles related to this case. As with all the disputes I mediate, I just want to lay down a simple ground rule, as I won't mediate a case if they don't occur. Civility is a must. I can't tolerate incivility. It's just how I do things. I know this mediation has been rather civil so far, it's just something I say as standard.

Other than that, I hope to help mediate the discussion, so a consensus can be established between both of you. Kindest regards, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 03:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ahering@cogeco.ca. You have new messages at Steve Crossin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for what you wrote on Paul Gunter's talk page... Johnfos (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. Just truth and fact.... --Achim (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ahering@cogeco.ca,

I think you are correct that as long as does not violate any copyrights it can be potentially added. On the other hand, I believe images need to be notable in some sense to merit inclusion; since there are many images on topics like this. Historically notable images could possibly add something of encyclopedic value to the article.

This is my understanding of how things should be. If you are of a different opinion, we should request for comment WP:RFC on this.

Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to fret. I think the noability deal is meant for the whole article. I have written beaucoup stuff on fire protection and the pix aren't famous per se, but descriptive of the topic, which was the intent. That's why commons exists. --Achim (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from Wikipedia:Image use policy: "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace; User pages are OK. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images."

Regards, Gnipahellir (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You took them out, fair game. Hard to deny the relevance though, they got the point across. Also not particularly flattering pix :-) --Achim (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I'd like to do some contrast/brightness/gamma correction on Image:Hallway_insulation.jpg. If you still have the original photos, could you mail them to me? I have also mailed you at ahering@cogeco.ca, but if that doesn't get through to you, you can just mail me a better address. --Slashme (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You should be able to just pull the jpg into an editing program and adjust that, if you would like. I scanned it in at at least 600dpi. I don't recall seeing your e-mail, but then I delete a lot of stuff I don't recognise, unless the subject line is fairly poignant, such as if it contains the word Wikipedia. Have you tried to just edit the file? --Achim (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the picture on Wikimedia already has arrows on it, which will make the graphics editing harder. As for the email not going through, I got a "not delivered" error message. Maybe I typed it wrong? I'll check. --Slashme (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The address you typed looks correct. You can always go to my website and click on the contact link. Everything is working well there. As far as digging up the analogue pictures and so forth, I have many other priorities right now, sorry. Best, --Achim (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem then. --Slashme (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

I have linked the english page Heat and smoke vent and the german page de:Rauch- und Wärmeabzug. As I am not fully aware of the terms used in Amerika I would be happy if someone at home in both worlds could have a look at this. I think the article on Smoke exhaust ductwork would also fit to the german scope of RWA. As you seem to be at home in Canada, I wonder if you have access to the french terms used in the subject and could search for more potential interwiki links. Also as these systems do not actively fight the fire nor hinder the fire from starting or spreading (opinions may differ on the last point) they do not really fit to AFP or PFP, rather they help in firefighting and secure evacuating of buildings. Maybe we need a category for such systems, including things like save evacuation paths, evacuation information systems, smoke and toxic gas management, clear access and aiding for effective fire fighting, controlling the development of a fire once it has started. thanks in advance --T.woelk (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo,

mit französisch bin ich nicht so bewandert. Im englischen Wiki differenzieren wir zwischen den Rauchabzugsklappen im Dach und den zulassungspflichtigen Schächten, geprüft nach ETK/DIN4102 etc. Die auslösende Elektronik ist natürlich auch ein Teil einer gesamten Anlage. Dies ist allerdings nicht im englischen Wiki behandelt. In Nord Amerika sind diese Anlagen allerdings nicht vorgeschrieben oder angesagt. In der BRD insbesondere scheint der passive Brandschutz noch die Überhand zu haben. Hierzulande gewinnt allerdings der aktive Brandschutz. Mehr darüber kannst Du hier lesen. In der Welt der Sprinkler, ist Rauch kein Thema, da man aus kommerziell motivierten Gründen lieber davon ausgeht, daß solange alles gesprinklert ist, nichts mehr schiefgehen kann. Das sollte man so sehen, wie die Weisung in Chernobyl, wo niemand während der Entwurfs- oder Bauphase eine Betonhaube rechtfertigen konnte, weil man sonst zugeben müsste, daß der sozialistische Reaktor eventuell mal ein Problemchen haben könnte. Ähnlich ist das hier. Rauchabzugsschächte mit Brandraten, vernünftig geprüft und nach gültigen Zulassungen eingebaut sind von der Bauvorschrift her in Nord Amerika nicht gefordert und werden daher nicht eingebaut. Was man hier an zugelassenen Schächten doch sieht, sind Küchenabzüge und Luftüberdruckschächte, damit Frischluft in Treppenhäuser, Operationssääle, etc. geblasen wird. Auch dies wurde die längste Zeit mit Neandertalmethoden gemacht, bis man hier ISO 6944 Prüfmethoden einsetzte, durch den Einstieg von DuraSteel in Kanada. Dann wurde der hiesige Klumpatsch übernacht illegal. Rauchabzug gemäß BS476 findet man wohl in England und in machen vorherigen Kolonien Englands, aber nicht in Nord Amerika. So haben wir auch keinen englischen Wiki Artikel über die gesamte Anlage, welches Sinn macht, sondern nur über die Schächte und die Dachklappen. Der RWA Artikel ist über die gesamte Anlage, passt aber nur teilweise auf die englischen Artikel, wo es um Dachklappen und Schächte mit Brandrate geht. Die beste Strategie wäre also wahrscheinlich einen ausführlicheren deutschen Artikel zu haben, der erwähnt, das Schächte mit Brandrate und Dachklappen mit zum System gehören können. Mehr Arbeit, aber so würde es eher stimmen. --Achim (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ahering@cogeco.ca. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Moved from User:Ikip's talk page by User:Ikip].

I wish I had some time, but I have not been able to devote nearly as much time to Wikipedia as I would like to have, of late, but thank you very much for inviting me. Notwithstanding that, if you are working on something where help is needed to combat ill-effects of deletionists, if you ask, I'll look at it. Best, --Achim (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ahering, sorry you are so busy in your real life, there are a lot of good articles which need rescuing by adding references.

Sorry I didn't respond earlier, unfortunately I have been in a major edit war at Business Plot, which includes Talk:Business Plot#RfC, with editors who have removed over a thousand well referenced words each. Because of events stemming from this, I got booted for 3 hours, and was unable to respond.

The amount of effort to save anything on wikipedia is completely disporportianal to those who want something kept, as opposed to those who want something deleted. After 4 years here, I have yet to find a quick and easy solution to countering such disruptive behavior.

Hundreds of hours maybe invested referencing an article (like in the case of Business Plot) in an attempt to make the article the best reference on the web, but all it takes is less than two hours for two like minded editors, to delete dozens of references and over a thousand words of references, that is why I have an Talk:Business Plot#RfC open about this disruptive and destructive behavior.

Hope you can find sometime in the future to join WP:Article Rescue Squadron, I find actively helping retain new editors, frustrated from their hard work being deleted, is the most rewarding and satisfying task I have ever done on wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken and thanks again for thinking of me in your struggle. Just too busy right now.... --Achim (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for note. I'm glad you understood the possible motives behind removal of that picture and that we all acted in good faith. I do understand your arguments, but there are so many variables here (i) Element articles are aimed at students, not professionals, thus we do our best to make them clearer - what you said about actual fitting is not evident to a newcomer. (ii) Whenever possible, we try to keep a picture which is clear both in thumb and full view (iii) We try to avoid identifiable people in pictures as much as possible. Your mentioning Mr. XXX at my talk would mean he agreed to this picture being released into the public domain and his name mentioned. Not to scare you, but please do take this issue seriously (in general, leaking personal information on WP without approval is reflected in WP:Outing and is a potentially serious offense). If not sure, please delete the name from your post. If sure this shouldn't happen, ask an administrator and he/she will erase that so that ordinary users can not recover that edit. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that your picture is more realistic, but I and many might not be happy with having a person there. Agree that WP shouldn't target any category, but. It should be understood by as many people as possible - that what I meant by "students". For record, there are no "page owners" on WP, off record, copper is not "my" article, but, I try to watch and contribute to every elements article. Off course "a good picture is worth a 1000 words", but a picture and 1000 words would be much better - i.e. lets get to work and improve WP. Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made my point. Enough said.--Achim (talk) 03:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kitchen exhaust cleaning. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could you please sign the RFC request that you had filed? I responded to the request, but my guess is that my response is showing up in the RFC itself because the request wasn't signed. (Of course, it could be something else causing my response to show up in the RFC. Thanks. Ngchen (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ahering,

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner but I rarely log in and I didn't receive any emails that there was a problem.

It looks like you guys took out a lot of pertinent information on the current state of the industry. Anything that was removed that referenced Phil Ackland should be put back as he is considered the foremost authority on kitchen exhaust cleaning around the world.

Saying that there are only two processes to clean exhaust system is also incorrect. With current advancements in the industry there are several processes that can be used including downstream chemical injection, upstream chemical injection, foaming, spray tanks, garden type sprayers etc.

The reason I took you pictures off is they looked like they were taken with a poloroid and scanned in and I didn't feel like they fit well with the article.

Taking links out to Phil Ackland and The Grease Police is also incorrect, these are both organizations that have helped to further this industry. I saw somewhere that they were labeled as spam but thats like saying that a link on a software webpage to Microsoft's site is spam.

You guys do whatever you feel is right but the page that was up had no links to any spam, and the Boston Fire link that was removed was a huge occurrence in our industry and it was directly related to shoddy workmanship in the kitchen exhaust cleaning field and has even led to strict enforcement of kitchen exhaust cleaners in Boston. http://www.ikeca-boston.org/

Take care and sorry if I didnt follow the right guidelines.

GreasePolice (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)GreasePolice[reply]

• My answer is on your talk page. --Achim (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Penetrant (mechanical, electrical or structural), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Penetrating item. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried to use the "undo" function on an inappropriate change to an industry term. I pressed on that thing 3 or 4 times but it di not do what it is supposed to do, which was to undo a "move". Recreating the original appeared to be the only way to approach the matter.

--Achim (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the history-page structure invites that mistaken expectation. In any case, see talk:Penetrating item#Title.
--Jerzy•t 22:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to be the main contributor to firestop, might you be able to correct the issues with tone, style etc., unless there is a conflict of interest on your side? 02:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I.e., see the section on close relationships. The section below that one regards editing while still utilizing methods to minimizing any possible bias. This is meant in good faith, I do not believe you have any utlerior motive other than to educate people regarding fire codes, although you do seem to work with them. W n C? 02:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can have a look. --Achim (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The external link you added to transglutaminase is not helpful. This is essentially a blog post, the content of which relies heavily on... the Wikipedia article to which you added the link! Despite the allegations of "Frankenstein food", there are no significant safety concerns over transglutaminase. It is definitely not the first enzyme used in cooking and preparing food - cheese manufacture started when humans used enzymes from cow's stomach lining to coagulate milk, and we use yeast enzymes to make bread rise! If you are particularly keen on introducing this into the article, perhaps some slightly better sources provided as references would be better. How about we take this to Talk:Transglutaminase? I think a lot of confusion has arisen because another kind of "meat glue", namely thrombin, has been banned in the EU because of actual safety concerns. JFW | T@lk 17:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind response. If I come across a news item or blog post that might potentially be suitable for discussion (or possibly with different sources), it is always helpful to post them on the talkpage for discussion. JFW | T@lk 19:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Vic couplings.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Standpipe penetration.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on List of call centre companies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can 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 a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Bonvallite (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you put in the English translation on commons, you need to change the de to en. I did two for you, such as this one]. PumpkinSky talk 00:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! --Achim (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Sheet metal, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. I understand your frustration, but one cannot simply remove a tag without discussion on the Talk Page. I hope the disagreement over content can be worked out. Unfortunately, we do not all have the expertise to make edits ourselves about technical issues. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't always have time to take on every deletionist or reversion. Usually, I find that my comments are not responded to. With the way this site is set up, with all the rules and regs, it just turns into a big cluster and you can't call a spade a spade without getting trampled in the process by anonymous parties who back each other up and lack the intestinal fortitude for a conversation. "Deemed not useful"? Paleeze. --Achim (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

All entries on this page are inappropriate per WP:PTM, leaving nothing to be disambiguated

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a draft-article (currently just on my local machine and not on-wiki yet) about the ICC, the publisher of the International Building Code. Since you seem expert in that general area, albeit probably more familiar with the Canadian equivalent, I wondered if you could help me out by reviewing my amateur attempt, once I upload it?  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2015 (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) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added an image to Ceramic a couple years ago, with caption:

Fire test furnace insulated with firebrick and ceramic fibre insulation.

Is the firebrick link intended to go to Grog (clay) on purpose?

Isaac (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I updated it to point to Fire_brick Isaac (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This file is now categorised in Category:Ships of BC Ferries. I wonder if this is correct, as not all ferries will have this type, I assume. Do you remember which ship was involved? --Stunteltje (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ahering@cogeco.ca. 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]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gerald W. Brown 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/Gerald W. Brown 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.

Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Annulus (firestop), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annulus (firestop) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Area of refuge 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/Area of refuge 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.

PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of call centre companies 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/List of call centre companies 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.

Suitskvarts (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Qwirkle (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]