User talk:Neufast

Minor Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		You are awarded this Barnstar for unending work making minor edits. It is the spelling and link corrections that make Wikipedia run smoothly. If only there were more editors like you, please continue to edit as much as you want. Outback the koala (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -Arch dude (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help in conforming to Wikipedia's external link policies

Dear fellow editors:

it is clear that a group of you from Tyndale has worked hard to create an extensive scholarly web site. You are undersandably proud of your work, and you feel that others should be mad aware of thos excellent resource,so you are adding links t your site from appropriate Wikipedia pages.

Unfortunately, your site is one of tens of thousands of sites thet can be described in exactly these words, and your group os one of thousands that have added links to Wikipedia in this manner. Wikipedia is a strange place with policies that may do not make sense in many cases when taken in isolation. We have a policy against percisely the activity I described above and that you are engaged in. Frankly, I suspect that your site is much more valuable than the vast majority of such sites, but the the class of site varies across the whole range from horrible to excellent, with no clear demarcation, so we have been forced by experience to prohibit this class of linking.

I am reluctantly removing all of your external links. Your links, as implemneted, violate three separate policies. First, you are adding links "in bulk," in violation of WP:LINKSPAM. Second, you are adding links to your own site, in violation of WP:COI. Finally, the links include the actual names of the indiviuals who are responsible for the sub-areas of your site. IF your site eventually rises to the level of being well-known to people who are not associated with it, then thoe un-involved people may eventually add external links, but this is not likely.

Since you appear to be true experts in this area of scholarship, the removal is painful for me. May I reccomend that you please add references instead of links? Each reference should be from an unrefrenced assertion in the article, and should be to a specific document. The fact that these documents are available on your site is not generally a problem, although we have blocked spammers who add poor references merely to add links to a web site. If you would like help with formatting references, please let me know. Many of our articles are very poorly refrenced, and we really could use your help.

Please note that I am merely one of the six million registered Wikipedia editors. I have no more (and no less) responsibility for the integrity of Wikipedia than any of you. If, after carefully reading our policies, you feel that I have mis-assessed you activities, then please let me know. We can resolve this amongst ourselves, or we can ask for help from other editors. Please note, however, that you rreally, really want to avoid bringing in the usual spam patrollers, since they are more accustomed to dealing with sites over atthe "horrible" end of the spectrum.

I intend to add notes to the talk pages of all of you. Please reply here. This is the talk page of teh first one of you whose activities I encountered. Thanks for your attention.

The following warning is the usual notification the spam patrol recommends. I have added it so as to fulfill the requirements of the WP:SPAM policy in the unlikely event that we must proceed to that level. I stongly prefer that we handle this collaboratively instead, since I do not wish to see your site blacklisted. -Arch dude (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines.

Well, this comes as quite a surprise! I'm happy to take my name and my institution's name off of the links (I wasn't aware that this was a problem--sorry), and I appreciate your other suggestions. The links which I have added, by the way, are to pages to a university website and not to my own personal site (we are Canada's largest theological seminary and I am Associate Dean). The links to pages I have created are hardly bulk, but bring together the best and recent scholarly materials available online in that field--as opposed to old publications in the public domain or to articles that have not been peered reviewed, for example. Most of my pages have received "best site" recognition by the Wabash Centre for Teaching and Learning in Theology and Religion (e.g., on theologian "Karl Barth" - http://www.wabashcenter.wabash.edu/resources/result_browse.aspx?topic=779&pid=519); for Barth Studies and Bonhoeffer studies, for example, there is nothing comparable. What is very new, and what I've incorporated into my "Reading Rooms" is the availability of scanned Google Books. As you note, we're developing extensive scholarly pages with experts in their field. I enjoyed the conversation in the German Wikipedia pages with experts in the field on the value of the individual links I submitted (I have some mirror pages written in German-- never received a message like yours with respect to my contributions). I am concerned that you are making a decision about the value of the links to academic pages without knowing the field. I've graded many papers and edited work by peers; I have a sense of what a poor contribution to a field or to an encyclopedia article looks like. I am surprised that I have been blocked without warning or without discussion (I am not sure why you are reacting so strongly). As you may know, we professors have traditionally pointed students away from Wikipedia and toward our own institutional libraries. But things are changing very quickly, and now with the Google Books project and other better online sources, we're beginning to point students to the www and we are contributing and hopefully adding to Wikipedia credibility. The hard work of creating these pages in the last months for students (and yes, it was hard work; hardly "spam," or "bulk" or "disruptive"!) provides high quality materials for anyone doing research, e.g., on Barth, Bonhoeffer, Moltmann, Hauerwas, Moltmann, Reformation, Gospel of Luke, etc. I grade far too many graduate papers where students are not aware of the primary and secondary sources available, or in which they cite materials not appropriate for a university level paper. Students, including 3rd world "students" without libraries looking for resources, go to Wikipedia, and now Wikipedia can point with links to scholarship that is new and peer reviewed. That is what my links in my areas of expertise are doing. Without being too defensive, I hardly think that you could make a case that they are anything like "bulk" or "spam" or "disruptive" additions. Glad to talk more (if I haven't been shut down) about their value. I have another first rate page developed on the "The Epistle to the Ephesians": http://www.tyndale.ca/seminary/mtsmodular/viewpage.php?pid=70 . Too bad you have blocked me from adding it; its significance to the topic far exceeds any of the links currently on that Wikipedia page (again, check it out yourself; if you disagree I'd be happy to know how to improve it). Again, I thank you for your suggestion for improved contributions. However I am a little intimidated by your black-listing power. Neufast (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a short note to re-assure you, as I am busy until this evening. I will reply at length then. First: you are not currently blocked, and I personally have no power to block you. Any editor can report policy violations to the appropriate forums, and administrators will then review the case and issue a block if needed. I have not yet even reported this, and if I do I will ask for a review, not a block. Note, however, that my actions are exceptionally mild by comparison to those you might expect from other editors or in other "spam" canses, because I do think your site is valuable. Second, your site is not in any current danger of blacklisting. Again. I have not reported this situation to the spam patrol, and even if I did, we would start by removng links, not by blacklisting. I very strongly prefer to handle this personally, as just another member of the community. -Arch dude (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply; sorry for my somewhat defensive reaction (I saw the big red-hand and thought that I had been barred from contributing). I'm happy to incorporate advice to strengthen the quality of the external links / contributions. These lists of resources--especially for underdeveloped sites--I think is important; without a good working bibliography and references to the literature, any encyclopedia-type article is guaranteed to be less than credible. Best, Neufast (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, Professor Neufast. After some review and reflection, I think we should keep the links, but please remove the name of the site administrators. Please retain the name of the University, though. This will make your links consistent with common practice. The presence of your name in the text, corresponding to your user name, is what triggered my initial reaction to the links. It is very much against the spirit of our "no advertizing" and "conflict of interest" policies, and this may trigger a response from some other editor. Please note: "advertizing" means any attempt to drive traffic to your web site, whether the web site is commercial or not, and "conflict of interest" arises when you are affiliated in any way with the web site, so technically we still have both problems. Fortunately, we have yet another policy to handle this situation: WP:IAR. My personal assesment is that your links are so valuable that I choose to ignore our other two policies. To explain our spam policies, I ask that you please glance at WP:WPSPAM, which describes the activities of the spam patrollers, and then look at WT:WPSPAM, where editors report spam. Note the very high level of activity there. The patrollers have developed a fair amount of combat fatigue, and there are a lot more spammers than patrollers. This can lead to some unfortunate hasty decisions, and I do not want you to get caught up in that mess.

I have a high regard for Canadian universities. One of my daughters is a graduate of McGill, and another daughter is currently a student there.

You mentioned that your web site has received some reviews in third-party publications. If there are two or more such reviews in the correct publications, we may be able to add a Wikiopedia article about the web site itself. This will need to be handled very carefully, ideally by a completrely independent editor. If you can provide two or more citations in publications that meet WP:RS, I will add the article. You yourself should not add such an article. After we add the article, we can format each of your external links to also have a link to the Wikipedia article.

I hope that my original note and the rest of our exchange has not discouraged you from further participation. Please look at it as an example of how a self-organized collection of six million volunteers goes about building an encyclopedia. We do not always manage to question all assrtions or catch all mistakes, but we do try. Thanks. -Arch dude (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent feedback; thanks so much; it is very helpfulj! Neufast (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Here are the "top site" designations given for six of my pages by the "Wabash Center Guide to Internet Resources for Teaching and Learning in Theology and Religion" ( “... sites which the Guide’s maintainer considers to be better than average, in terms of resources that are useful for teaching and learning in theology and religion”).

Christian Theology Reading Room (Top Site)
Karl Barth Reading Room (Top Site)
Dietrich Bonhoeffer Reading Room (Top Site)
Jürgen Moltmann Reading Room (Top Site)
John Howard Yoder Reading (Top Site)
Stanley Hauerwas (Top Site)

Tyndale

I see from this edit to your talk page that you claim to be associated with Tyndale University College and Seminary. Please read WP:COI before making any more edits to that article. Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morrow Park Tyndale Bayview Campus.jpg

Thank you for uploading this media, it's appreciated.

However, it would be nice if you could give some kind of indication as to what license the media is under. That way other people can be confident in making use of it for many varied purposes :)

Adding license information also helps prevent media you've put effort into creating from being deleted :)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators which will assist you :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I have released the photo as public domain. Did I do it correctly? Neufast (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neufast. You have new messages at Talk:Whitchurch-Stouffville.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:The Lebovic Centre for Arts & Entertainment – Nineteen on the Park Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON.jpg

Thank you for uploading this media,

However, it would be nice if you could give some kind of indication as to what license the media is under. That way other people can be confident in making use of it for many varied purposes :)

Adding license information also helps prevent media you've put effort into creating from being deleted :)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators which will assist you :)

It would also be appreciates if you could add :

1-2 paragraphs explaining what is shown in the image.
A location marker/geocode indicating the location of the building shown.

As well as helping those categorising the image, it will help other users of the image (including other academics) make better use of the image :)

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the reminder; I've put in an address and have released copyright. I'll get to the paragraph in a bit. Neufast (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:The Lebovic Centre for Arts & Entertainment – Nineteen on the Park Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:The Lebovic Centre for Arts & Entertainment – Nineteen on the Park Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the note; my oversight. Made the change. Neufast (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skype

You might note that at least one of your recent edits also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you. The bottom of this edit in particular [1] --Rumping (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I had no idea! Neufast (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Stouffville Map 1880.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Stouffville Map 1880.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated Ratcliff Site, Wendat (Huron) Ancestral Village for DYK

Hi. I've nominated Ratcliff Site, Wendat (Huron) Ancestral Village, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your edits and your nomination. With appreciation, Neufast (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and by the way, the hook has been accepted. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ratcliff Site, Wendat (Huron) Ancestral Village

On 13 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ratcliff Site, Wendat (Huron) Ancestral Village, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Neufast (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8.0K hits on Oct 13! Amazing. Could you add it to DYK?

License tagging for File:Huron Feast of the Dead by J.-F. Lafitau in Moeurs des sauvages amériquains II 1724.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Huron Feast of the Dead by J.-F. Lafitau in Moeurs des sauvages amériquains II 1724.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! Please see if I did it correctly (here is the link to the scan of the 18th century source). Thanks. Neufast (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just because letters always got the article "das" in german. "Der J" or "Die J" would sound stupid anyway...--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Stouffer

Thanks for the good work on this article. If you wish to comment on whether or not it should be retained, please post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Stouffer rather than Talk:Abraham Stouffer. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the link on USS's article from Stouffville to Whitchurch-Stouffville

Hello.

I'm going to venture a guess that you live in the area and may have even known Jason Parsons and/or people close to him, and he could very well have lived in the township of Whitchurch-Stouffville rather than the town of Stouffville proper, however I am not finding this information in any reliable sources. Although the original article from yorkregion.com that was used as a reference for that statement has been taken down, I found another article on that site which again states that Parsons is simply from Stouffville. I also found other articles on that same website about other people where it is specified when they live in Whitchurch-Stouffville versus Stouffville—such as this article about Raffi Torres and this article about Gabe Grunwald. In fact, USS's own bio on their own website says Parsons is from "the town of Stouffville." Given these facts, I have changed the link back to Stouffville, Ontario.

Cheers Marchije•^speak/_peek 16:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've long advocated that the two pages should be merged. When people speak of Stouffville today, they mean the whole of Whitchurch-Stouffville. The full name "Whitchurch-Stouffville" is never used, except for official town documentation. It is quite confusing. In my opinion, all links to Stouffville should go to the Whitchurch-Stouffville page (a nuance you only get by living here). Neufast (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Although I did provide you two links where people were reported to have been from "Whitchurch-Stouffville" so to state that 'The full name "Whitchurch-Stouffville" is never used, except for official town documentation' is not entirely accurate. We also cannot assume that everyone who says "Stouffville" is actually referring to "Whitchurch-Stouffville". While it may be true that some people who state that they live in "Stouffville" may in fact live in the greater Whitchurch-Stouffville area, conversely there are those who live in other towns in Whitchurch-Stouffville who do not say they live in "Stouffville" when asked where they live—for example, I don't know anyone in Musselmans Lake who claims they live in "Stouffville" when asked. Admittedly, stating where you live can depend on to whom you are speaking. As another example, my parents live in Scarborough and when asked where they live by people within in the GTA they say they live in "Scarborough", but when dealing with people from outside of Ontario or Canada they will say they live in "Toronto", since most people have an idea where Toronto is, but not necessarily Scarborough. And I'm not trying to pick a fight here; I understand where the confusion lies, but there is a difference between the town of Stouffville and the municipality of Whitchurch-Stouffville and so it makes sense to me that they have separate articles.

On a personal side note, if you want to talk about annoying: I used to live on Concession Rd 2 just north of Wagg Rd—which is actually part of Uxbridge Township in Durham Region—and yet my postal code was out of Stouffville, even though I lived in neither the town of Stouffville, nor the Whitchurch-Stouffville township! Whenever I needed something like a tow truck they would ask for my address and I'd have to ask "Do you mean my mailing address or do you want to know where I live?" Because if I gave my mailing address they would send a truck from York Region who would have to call me back and tell me that they couldn't service me because I was in Durham. To make matters more confusing I also had a 905-640 phone # which again was out of Stouffville. Also some people would put "Uxbridge Township" as my city on my mail, because that is in fact where I lived, and it would get redirected to the wrong postal station and then take that much longer to get my house; it would eventually arrive with the city name crossed out and the words "wrong city" scrawled on it. Such is country life I suppose. Ha ha! Marchije•^speak/_peek 20:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Wendat Huron Ceremony Mantle Site Stouffville August 2011.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Wendat Huron Ceremony Mantle Site Stouffville August 2011.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license 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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} 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. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jane Philpott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Markham. 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) 08:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Markham—Stouffville, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rouge River. 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) 09:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I figured I'd ask since I'm assuming you live in the Markham / Stouffville area, and I've moved south to Welland. I'm trying to get a picture of Donald Cousens Parkway, and was wondering if that may be something that would be easy for you to do amongst your normal travels? Cheers, Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Old Fort with Moat -Aurora Huron Site in Whitchurch-Stouffville 1944 sketch.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Old Fort with Moat -Aurora Huron Site in Whitchurch-Stouffville 1944 sketch.JPG. 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 are the copyright holder for 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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chewett, Map of the Province of Upper Canada 1825.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chewett, Map of the Province of Upper Canada 1825.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 12:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Neufast. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Neufast. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Neufast. 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]

Nomination of List of churches in Whitchurch–Stouffville for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of churches in Whitchurch–Stouffville 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 churches in Whitchurch–Stouffville 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. Ajf773 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]