User talk:LoneWolfJack

Welcome!

Hello, LoneWolfJack, 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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Powers 18:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Joanne vannicola.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Joanne vannicola.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion[edit]

Lycanthrope (variations of the term)[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Lycanthrope (variations of the term), 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 deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for beeing so kind not to just revert everything. I have no problems with deleting this article, in fact, I was never happy with this solution myself. However, the idea behind this was to have the variations on a single page instead of two. You may say that you had redirected Lycanthrope to Lycantrophy anyway, but IMHO this is just plain wrong. If those two articles are to be merged, Lycanthropy should redirect to Lycanthrope, as it derives from that term. Probably this is splitting hairs, but maybe we can agree upon merging Lycanthropy into Lycanthrope and remove the variations of the term article. LoneWolfJack 13:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, put your message at the bottom of my talk page instead of the top (the bottom is the norm) and I'll see it sooner. I'm sorry if my edit summaries sounded rude, but it was hard to summarize all the reasons why not without being brisk and abrupt, and I felt that you deserved to know all the reasons. If you want so many disambiguation pages and to separate Lycanthrope and Lycanthropy into separate articles, you are more than welcome to bring it up in the correct place, which would most likely be Talk:Lycanthropy, but I doubt that those who watch the Lycanthropy article will see it your way. Your suggestion of reaching a concensus between just the two of us is not the Wikipedia way, because a concensus means more than two people and we obviously see things in opposite ways. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I have no objections if you want the variations of the term article to be deleted; however, by suggesting to bring up the issue of seperating Lycanthrope/Lycanthropy on a talk page, you take it for granted that your action of merging them was right in the first place. A consensus should be reached between the two of us in the first place, then we let the community decide about whether this consensus improves the wiki. I agree that the best idea is to put all that information we have now on a single page, like it is now. However, you made a little form error so to speak, as you should always summarize articles under the noun or the term it derives from. Lycanthropy clearly derives from Lycanthrope, so Lycanthropy should be a redirect to Lycanthrope, not the other way round. The reason I split everything up was because I did not want to offend the one who merged the articles (you) by just reverting your changes. As you might have read by now in the wiki guidelines, reverting changes just because you disagree is not appreciated. LoneWolfJack 12:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nancy Anne Sakovich[edit]

The article Nancy Anne Sakovich has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. BangJan1999 23:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Wikifrontera.jpg[edit]

The file File:Wikifrontera.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nancy Anne Sakovich[edit]

The article Nancy Anne Sakovich has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nancy Anne Sakovich for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nancy Anne Sakovich 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/Nancy Anne Sakovich 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. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]