User talk:FredrickS

Welcome!

Hello, FredrickS, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 20:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year zero[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your contribution to Year zero. However for them to be valid contributions to this article you need to make some changes. Firstly, and most importantly, we need som verification. That means providing some sources - academic papers, books, ore reputable web sites, that confirm your statements.

Secondly once you have provided verification then you also need to adjust the article to show that it is only the RC church that counts like this. The impression we give at the moment is that all dates are taken from Dec25th (which is clearly wrong).

Please don't reply here, reply at Talk:Year zero where I have copied the above comment. DJ Clayworth 20:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asked for arbitration by others 2/8/2006FredrickS

You can find a detailed description of the tools available for dispute resolution, and their suggested order of use, at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Also, if you're not logged in, you can still datestamp your comments easily by entering five "~" marks (no need to do the datestamping manually). --Christopher Thomas 02:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty nest[edit]

Hi Fredrick, welcome to Wikipedia. I think that your page Empty nest violates the no original research rules of Wikipedia, and I have accordingly proposed it for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empty nest). You may want to comment on that page if you disagree! –Joke 01:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joke,

I am working on the rebuttal for such a request right now. The information has been published, and has been discussed in the media, though not extensively. Especially since the Empty Nest appears in the section of speculative physics beyond the Big Bang, I see not how deletion of this information would be appropriate. Wikipedia is not just the place for conventional information, published information is the core. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FredrickS (talk • contribs) on 02:03, 13 February 2006

Linking this article from big bang also appears to violate verifiability rules, as self-published sources aren't considered reliable. Sources for scientific articles generally have to be from peer-reviewed journals that have sufficiently good reputations among scientists. Self-published sources are mainly only useful as references for articles about themselves. --Christopher Thomas 02:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered resistance of others, and it looks Wikipedia's regulation is on their side (until I get furter in having the idea displayed in the media) and agree to have this page Empty_nest removed. FredrickS

Full Representation[edit]

Blame the Center for Voting and Democracy for introducing an alternative, marketing term for proportional representation. Feel free to edit the latter article instead. -- Dissident (Talk) 04:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're getting at considering my turning Full Representation into a redirect. The content of your article at the time before is available in the edit history, as you can see here and can be reverted at will. See Help:Page history for more info.

Also, Full representation and Full Representation are two different articles; notice the different capitalization. Anyway, at the very least, one should be a redirect to the other and their contents should not just be duplicated. As capitalization is generally discouraged here, the former should become the main article.

To be honest, I'm not particularly thrilled with the changes you've made to the introduction of proportional representation, as I consider the changes you've made to the text to be more vague, subjective and filled with side issues, whereas an introduction should have the right combination of succinctness and generality.

I'll make you a deal. I'll revert the changes you've made to proportional representation and in return I'll ignore full representation for the moment. After a while, when its contents have settled down a bit, you can try and get a consensus that the two concepts are indeed different, because I, till this moment, never encountered this viewpoint and consider it an extreme minority one, if it's at all shared by anyone more than just you. If you fail, we'll try to merge the contents articles again to everybody's satisfaction, discussing it at Talk:proportional representation.

I also suggest you merge the contents of Political System in the Netherlands (again notice the improper capitalization) with that of Politics of the Netherlands. -- Dissident (Talk) 19:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good answer. As an immigrant to the United States, I have been amazed how little Americans truly understand of the proportional system, and I am not surprised that you are not familiar with the term full representation and mistook it to mean one and the same thing as proportional representation. Thank you also for giving me some time and space her: I am not the best writer and need time (and possibly help) to get this page look at its best. And you are right: Politics of the Netherlands is a much better page. I will look how I can merge the information I have into that page. Possibly I will end up agreeing with you that it can all be delivered best on one and the same page.

FredrickS 02:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how one can immediately deduce someone's nationality based simply on the fact that that person is unaware of anyone differentiating the meanings of the terms "full representation" and "proportional representation", let alone sharing this assessment. Anyway, unless you can supply evidence there exists significant support for your view, it's bound to be classified as idiosyncratic on your part, resulting in the eventual, inevitable merger of the two articles. As far as I am concerned proportional representation refers to a class of voting systems as well as the effect of their use. -- Dissident (Talk) 03:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Female Parliamentarians[edit]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Female Parliamentarians, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Female Parliamentarians. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. - David Oberst 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you've removed the proposed deletion tag I'll see if I can find other editors to give an opinion, likely as part of an deletion nomination. I'm not sure if a phrase such as "Female Parliamentarians" is an article topic, but if it is the existing text is not it. - David Oberst 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emancipation[edit]

I've reverted the Emancipation disambiguation page once again. First, a disambiguation page isn't the place for mini-essays (see MOS:DAB). More importantly, the use of "emancipation" in your text seems to be somewhat unique - I'm not aware that it is standard usage to consider citizens of countries with proportional representation systems more "emancipated" than those without, for example. Unless you can provide some standard citations of this usage, I suspect that you have run afoul of Wikipedia's "no original research" requirements (see WP:NOR). Also (and my apologies if English is not your first language), but some of your wording ("can start to participate as they are without adjusting to the one or two parties in control", or "being able to be as one is") is both difficult to understand, and reinforces the impression that one is reading the writer's personal views, not an encyclopedia article.

Finally, it is considered impolite to cry "censorship" (as you have in both your revert summaries) to simple disagreements over article content. Regards - David Oberst 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I am the "Mr. Virgo" referred to in your cryptic edit summary[1], but I have removed the "proportional representation" entry from the Emancipation article once again. Before restoring it, please provide citations to this usage - textbooks using the term in this manner, significant use of the term "emancipation" by groups advocating PR, etc. - David Oberst 20:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oberst,

I forgot whose quote it was, but it goes something like this: the problem is not that people lack knowledge about certain issues, it is the knowledge they have and consider correct when it is not correct, that is the problem. Please look up the explanation of the word Emancipation in the best source available to all: the dictionary (even the one provided by wikipedia should suffice). You will find, without any problem, that I have communicated very straight-forwardly with you all this time.

I cannot educate you any better than by pointing you to the dictionary. The Webster dictionary clearly states with the word emancipation: to free from restraint, control, or the power of another. All this applies to the political platform. You seem to have gotten the picture with 'suffragettes,' but, forgive me for giving my honest opinion, otherwise you are drawing a blank. I read that you are Canadian, and in the wiki Proportional_representation I read that several Canadian provinces are considering changing the system to deliver full representation instead of winner-takes-all. I don't know if that is why you want to erase the input (when and if you don't like that to happen), but please, educate yourself before you erase. Emancipation points to a process of ultimately becoming equals (an ideal we may never be able to reach, but the process of emancipation can go on for a real long time). I remember when women were starting to wear pants that that was considered a form of emancipation; that what was first considered not-possible (in fashion: not-done) has now become possible.

The pen-ultimate form of emancipation is that of political emancipation; the political platform is the platform that matters most in emancipation because this is where you (or your self-elected representative) are allowed to sit around the table of decision makers or not. In district elections, limitations exists collectively on who can sit around the table of decision makers, limitations that do not exist (to that extent) in proportional systems.

North-Americans often think of emancipation only as belonging to those people who were set free, not those who obtained equal rights. The Voting Roghts Act of 1965, for instance, was an important step that helped emancipate many African-Americans in the voting booth.

While colloquially one term may conflict in meaning with the same term used in another part of the world - particularly a problem in world languages like English and French - it should be considered a given for users of these languages that such colloquialism exists. In our world today, the Netherlands is considered the nation that politically delivers the most freedom to its voters [[2]].

FredrickS 23:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted once again. Instead of unneeded lectures attempting to educate, please provide citations of common usage of "emancipation" such that it needs a pointer to "proportional representation" on the disambiguation page. If indeed "the Netherlands is considered the nation that politically delivers the most freedom to its voters", and this is due to proportional representation, and the process is commonly referred to as "emancipation", I have no doubt that this important fact will be documented in numerous textbooks or other sources that you can provide. Any number of activities might be argued as constituting "emancipation", but if the term is not commonly used in that context there is no need for Wikipedia to disambiguate it. For instance, Canadian soldiers may have helped "emancipate" the Netherlands, but as the word is not commonly used there is no need for a link to the Liberation Day (The Netherlands) article, nor indeed to the Women's trousers article.

Forgive my skirting the borders of sarcasm, but I notice I am not the first "North American" whose knowledge you have deemed insufficient and attempted to improve, and I would suggest that you refrain from doing so in the future. Similarly the rather ridiculous speculation that my reasons for "erasing your input" is some sort of attempt to keep Canada bound in the shackles of non-proportional representation and, presumably, lesserly emancipated.

I will attempt to enlist other editors to provide their views on the entry. - David Oberst 00:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Dear Oberst,[reply]

Apologies, first. Your continued erasures of my input, and my attempts to reinstate what I consider vital and common knowledge (see suffragettes, which you left standing) has made me angry at you, and now I have made you angry at me with my language. Not a good way to continue a conversation. I do indeed find North-America a place of battle, even that of language, with words becoming the reasons why something is included, for instance in Wikipedia, and why some information is not included. And that battle makes me want to throw up my hands in the air and say: why battle about what is not important. I prefer to refer to the dictionary to make people open up their eyes to the real meaning of a word, often much broader than just the familiar context.

I have no objections to you asking others to help figure this one out. Since you now allow suffragettes as one of the entrees in this now very list-like looking wiki-page, I am already impressed that the concept of political emancipation has not been erased by you (not meant to be cynical, just an observation).

What I found in a half an hour search on political emancipation, shows me how much it is the paramount feature I consider it to be. If this wiki-page needs a remake, I suggest placing the feature of political emancipation back in the top again. However, I am not a must-win person, I want to find common grounds that hold truths everyone recognizes or can recognize.

[[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] [[16]] point 2.6 [[17]] named in the same breath. [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] [[21]] [[22]] [[23]] [[24]]

I've copied over all this text to Talk:Emanicipation which seems like the best place. I will also add my comments. CaptainJ^{(t | c | e)} 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:FredrickS response above also copied to Talk:Emancipation - please continue discussion there. - David Oberst 04:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination Female Parliamentarians[edit]

I've nominated the article Female Parliamentarians for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Female Parliamentarians satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female Parliamentarians. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Female Parliamentarians during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. David Oberst 07:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street[edit]

Hi, please comment at Talk:Wall Street#New Walloons changes. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of LocalParty.Org (United States)[edit]

A tag has been placed on LocalParty.Org (United States), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

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 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems you removing the tag. I do like it when especially political information is not censured, but I did not have time to create a full display of all the things LocalParty.org stands for on the site.FredrickS (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing your own book[edit]

Hello. Per WP:COI, editors are strongly discouraged from adding references to their own works to Wikipedia articles. It's considered self-promotion. If your work has made a significant impact in the relevant fields, rest assured that someone else will add it without your help. If not, then it probably doesn't satisfy the WP:N guidelines. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris,

I agree with your observation in general, but I do not believe you cover the full truth with your statement. I am careful through placing a reference to the proof of nothing only at the appropriate wiki site.

Thank you for your understanding that knowledge sometimes travels along different paths than just the mainstream. I could quite easily have others place the link for me, making it an invisible act for you, but I am rather a straight forward person. If you consider my information as inappropriate on the wiki site, you may remove it. But if you want to follow a rule for the sake of the rule and not the contents, then I kindly request you to not remove it.FredrickS (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor Rotterdam lost leading position in 2004[edit]

For those who claim that Singapore overtook Rotterdam Harbor's position earlier than 2004, please note that Singapore calculated/calculates its numbers in a peculiar manner. Since they have connections to the rest of the world only via water, each shipment is moved in and out by boat, and they count it both times as cargo. In Rotterdam, the cargo is counted only once, and whether it is moved by ship, truck or rail is of no importance. Only after Shanghai overtook Rotterdam harbor's leading position, did Singapore overtake the second position (using the ordinary cargo calculations).

Wall Street has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for May 2011[edit]

Wall Street, a page you edited has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for May 2011. We encourage you to participate in improving this article. You can also vote for next months article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Female parliamentarians[edit]

A tag has been placed on Female parliamentarians, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. 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. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). 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 article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uriah Heep[edit]

I've reverted your edit that changed the lead sentence to say "Uriah Heep is..." British bands take the plural form on Wikipedia, as you'd get plenty of funny looks in the UK if you said Uriah Keep was your favourite band or that Demons and Wizards is its best album. You might also be interested to know that, in a sporting context at least, Englishmen would say "England are" [playing] – again, "England is" sounds very odd on this side of the pond. Best, JonC ^Talk 22:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's why the English also say "It is I" something not done in any other language ("I" and "is" do not go together in a single sentence). If you want to keep British English weird, be my guest.

Uh, what should it be instead? "It are I"? JonC ^Talk 16:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two options to state it clearly. "That am I" ("That, I am") or "It is me". One version is the Germanic structure, the other is the Romance structure. As you know, English is unique in having several languages melded into one. By applying the Germanic rules to the Romance structure, an official sentence was created that is awkward. Ordinary English people prefer to say: "It's me" because it is understood there is some violation going on somehow with "It is I". Only the purists would say "It is I" because that's how they were instructed.

Also, I think the reason in English one would say "Uriah Heep are..." is that the sentence is understood as "The members of Uriah Heep are..." The second sentence is of course correct in any language. Similarly with your example: "The team players of England are..." Leaving out "member" or "players" in a sentence can ordinarily be done in spoken language, close to never causing a problem. Yet in written language it is awkward to see a sentence conjugated towards what is implied and not based on what is written.

Woonerf[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Woonerf, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunnyvale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this update; it was unintentional to create that link. Thank you for letting me fix this.

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Titia Ex (2nd copy).
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your overview. Yes, I may need some help. I bumped into the same problem creating Ex' Dutch wiki-page. Others had to help and now it has been accepted, since "Ex is an encyclopedia-worthy artist". Some of the footage is nowadays available through youtube, for instance, the DW series on light artists. Deutsche Welle (German Wave) is like CNN, half in German, half in English. So, this establishes the international acknowledgement of Ex, since she is neither German nor English.

One issue I bumped into on the Dutch Wiki is that a convention was established to not allow more than 3 external links. To the English Wiki, I have now added more links, so you can establish her 'encyclopedic worthiness'. Please, while reviewing, delete those external links you deem unnecessary.

Please, If you feel that other additional changes can be made easily to make this page wiki-worthy, please do. I am not an artist or wiki-professional. But I hope you can establish that Ex' work is of the required professional level.

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Titia Ex (2nd copy).
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! TheOneSean | Talk to me 16:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Titia Ex (2nd copy).
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! FredrickS, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Thank you for the invitation, and I may indeed come over and have a cup. So far, it appears I am on the right track, but am still surprised the page submission being rejected. I do like the comments, and see them as help for improving the site.

advice[edit]

Let me give you some advice directly. The problem is that you cannot reference the article to documents on the artist's web site (unless you can find the original, and it is a published reliable source) or to unpublished work of any sort.You can give the site as an external link, but the article must depend on references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Material in gallery brochures and the like is not considered reliable. The date and place of birth , however, can be taken from the artist's official web page.

The relevant criterion for notability is WP:CREATIVE. I think it is met, because there is substantial criticism of the works--I see the nYTimes article. Thats the sort of references that is needed. The DW article similarly, and mondo arc. Cite these in full: give the author, title, reference to the printed issue if possible, link to the online article, date when you accessed the online article. It's easiest to add the necessary information if you use the ProveIt gadget, which you can activate on the Gadgets pane of your user preferences page (it's in the "editing" section).

When you've done this please let me know on my user talk pager, and i will re-review it. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Titia Ex (2nd copy) (October 14)[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Titia Ex (2nd copy).
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Titia Ex was accepted[edit]

Titia Ex, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SarahStierch (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paco, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ricardo and Kiko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FredrickS (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)I'd suggest leaving this in. According to me this is correct information, and placed in the appropriate location. Thank you for your communication on this, though.[reply]

Help write something?[edit]

Since you've done a lot of work on Nothing, I was wondering if you could help build an article on the rather abstract concept of Something. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your invite, BD2412, I gladly accept.

However, if you like my contribution, will you confirm the ref I created to the link I provided? It is considered impolite to promote oneself, and I hope you can do me the honor. FredrickS (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, FredrickS. 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[edit]

Hello, FredrickS. 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[edit]

Hello, FredrickS. 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]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

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) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]