User talk:Pevernagie

"There is no need to insult me,that first,"

Cool but where ? Sir Lothar (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The remark about the intelligence of the Dutch people, while I am not Dutch, it was clear the remark was intended for me. And we handled this matter back in January. Pevernagie (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Bobin

Hi, Pevernagie! I didn't notice that I had been logged out when I did that edit to James Bobin. My intention was to move that information to Fran Beauman, an article that's hyperlinked from James Bobin anyway. I've restored my edit, hope you agree that that information belongs better there. If you disagree, I won't revert anymore, it's no big deal for me. As you see, there's no biography of Bobin on Fran's page, either. Sunnan (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV report for 96.242.20.12 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)

Hi, I've now blocked the user. When warning users for inserting false information (as opposed to straightforward vandalism), use the {{uw-error}} templates - it makes it much clearer what the problem is, and makes my job much easier! Good work spotting that it was false, though. Best, – Toon ^(talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Airbender

To Pevernagie:

I have just found the message regarding my edit, which was regarded as not constructive. I have replaced them along with the valid links. How are they not constructive to the Last Airbender Page when those posts can be cited from Paramount Studio employees? There is a question regarding the production of the film and I have added data regarding the controversy.

How is that not relevant to the page?

Sphinxian247 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Sphinxian247[reply]

The casting call is not something you put on Wikipedia. And you use a lot of uppercase. Pevernagie (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Please look at how many warnings a user has before placing a new one. You just gave someone a level 1 warning after he had already received 4 warnings. Ridernyc (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, I didn't see the first three because of the speedy deletion tag :-) . Pevernagie (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:Lilian baels.png

Thanks for uploading File:Lilian baels.png. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Several months ago, you went through the effort of saying an edit I had made to the Billy Joel entry "did not appear to be constructive", and then used the rather powerful word "vandalism" to describe an edit I made to the Power trio entry. In both instances, you suggested I use the sandbox for experimenting, which "does not appear to be constructive" to me, since I was not experimenting, I was making legitimate edits. Needless to say, you reverted both edits. To be honest, I don't remember any more what these horrible things I did were, and I would genuinely like you to remind me, because I honestly don't recall ever having written anything "unconstructive", let alone so malicious as to be labelled "vandalism", in Wikipedia. I simply don't remember what it was that could have offended your sensibilities so much, because I've got nothing but respect for Wikipedia and my intent in making edits is always only to expand the body of knowledge available to humanity. So, if it's not too much to ask, would you be so kind as to let me know what it was that I wrote in these edits that you considered to be unconstructive and even vandalism? Perhaps I can then rewrite them in a way that manages to contribute to the general body of knowledge while at the same time meeting your stringent criteria for "appearing to be constructive". Thank you. 208.80.97.117 (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the changes you mention, and I reverted Power trio because you removed quite a lot of material from the page without discussing it on the talk page; as for Billy Joel, in hindsight perhaps a "please provide source material" would have been better placed. Pevernagie (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Charlotte

Not that my blog was receiving all that many hits from the article that I linked to Princess Charlotte's death, but did you read the article before deleting it? It was not a collection of links, but a fully written post that was researched, footnoted and quoted. In addition, please note that other contributors to Wikipedia have linked to my blog, asking me for permission first, which I always give. Yes it is my blog, but I linked this particular article because it had something to add about how her death influenced obstetrics. This discussion does not belong in the main body of the article about Princess Charlotte. What I wrote was extremely specific and I linked to the post only. Regarding a discussion, I have found that questions I pose are not being answered and I consider the exercise to be futile. Vsanborn (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are a recognized authority it's against policy. That others have linked to your blog in the past only shows that they lack a clear understanding of the guidelines for external links. Pevernagie (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated subject, the article on Wikipedia:Princess_Charlotte_Augusta_of_Wales is full of citations to "Williams" -- but there's no corresponding book. I haven't been able to spot who "Williams" ought to be in the article's history; perhaps you can do better? Apologies, but I have no Wikipedia ID. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.224.84 (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found the original full citation and put it on the page again. Pevernagie (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.224.84 (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ccw223

I see you've also reverted this editor today. FYI, I have reported this person at WP:AIV. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that's why I had a look at his/her edits, but you should not have reported him/her (yet), he/she only made three edits this month, the edits he/she made on 25 May are not recent enough to be taken into account as well. If he/she vandalizes other pages just give the user a 3rd and then 4th warning, after which you can report him/her again. Pevernagie (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed one of the admins felt his behavior in the past was serious enough to block him indefinitely, so that chapter is closed. Pevernagie (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

Pevernagie, an article I recently created, Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, has been nominated for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Please take the time to weigh in and stop its deletion. Thanks again for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia! Caponer (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza

Hello Pevernagie! I know this is a controversial subject, but the information that I published yesterday on Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza article is verifiable on:

Jean Pailler; Maria Pia of Braganza: The Pretender. New York: ProjectedLetters, 2006.
Jean Pailler; Maria Pia: A Mulher que Queria Ser Rainha de Portugal. Lisbon: Bertrand, 2006, pp. 17.

Remember that Jean Pailler is the same author of the biography of King Charles I of Portugal. Thank you. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nukes

The section of Pokhran is about reaction to india not Pakistan 86.156.211.170 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section details how Pakistan reacted. Pevernagie (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About your edit ... Winning an online cyber game does not make you famous..

World Cyber Games had 78 countries listed as participants last year, and I think you need to revise your position on this subject, eSport is taking a lot more space lately, and the World Cyber Games is one of the biggest worldwide organsation of tournaments, with extensive media coverage. I may be biased because I am a part of the organisation of the Canadian Division, however I do believe that being an accomplished cyberathlete counts as being famous and an upstanding member of the community. Anyhow I will let you decide what to do with that edit.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.210.117 (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But does that make it notable enough to be mentioned on wikipedia pages not directly related to the subject itself? I think it is best to restrict the "famous people" heading to people who are notable enough to get their own page, otherwise everyone who had their five minutes of fame is going to want to be included. Pevernagie (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou

Thanks for the message, but I wanted to comment to you points that they are not clear for me. The discussion about the title is due to a former commentary in which there is speculated that the title of king of Jerusalem emerges separated from the honors and royal Spanish titles [1], nevertheless such approach is fruit of WP:OR, since there is no reference that this title was separated from the rest honorific titles of the king of Spain, since the title of king of Jerusalem is simply an honorific title and not that of a separated realm [2].

As indicates your summary to the reversion in the article Spanish king is not the only claimant: if we take the legitimist line of the French Bourbons, these kings bore the title of king of France and Navarre, but not that of Jerusalem, wherefrom does this title come?, The only French king that I know as king of Jerusalem is Louis XII, and he was such simply for becoming king of Naples.

Therefore in agreement to WP:PROVEIT (burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material [...] Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed), you must prove that such pretension exists or it existed dynastically in the French legitimism. Nevertheless, it does not serve for it this page Kings of Jerusalem#Potential claimants today, as it is indicated in WP:CIRCULAR-WP:SOURCES-Wikipedia:Reliable source examples-WP:REFB: Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources, as this would result in a self-reference (Wikipedia citing itself) - Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources.

With what, in absence of sources the fact that the duke of Anjou is claimant to the kingship of Jerusalem is simply a hoax, and such expression has the same validity as if he said that he is a claimant to throne of Japan. Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the claims of Louis Alphonse come from the Spanish line, then you have a point. Based on the edit summary it appeared as if you were deleting it because you considered Juan Carlos to be the claimant, my bad. Pevernagie (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, forgive my delay in answering, but Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou's issue, has gotten into in those of the kingdom of Jerusalem and I have found a monumental disaster.

Since Louis Alphonse is not a claimant to the Spanish throne due to his grandfather's renunciation, either he is not claimant of the title of Jerusalem that is joined to Spanish one, nevertheless indeed he can be considered a legitimist claimant to the French throne, but such a pretension is not included by that of Jerusalem, and this way, so simply, the pretension to Jerusalem must be eliminated. I have leaned out the article Kings of Jerusalem and its talk page, where apart from a defective style of writing, there is simple genetic speculation, with arguments as "solid" as Why not?, for example, in Brienne claims it appears as claimant Charles-Antoine Lamoral (born 30 September 1946), well then, a secondary source quotes that in 1672 the succession of Brienne and of Cyprus united to the crown of Jerusalem,[3] and the Cypriote succession was in the in the Saboyard line very discreetly [4]. With what, we have a article with wp:or, simply being based on a particular speculation. Trasamundo (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

german pretender

Waarom zijt gij zo bang om onze koning te verliezen aan ons moderrijk? Wij zijn wel degelijk Neder-Duitsers en geen Franzosen, zoals zoveel in België denken. Dus Albert II is als Wettin wel degelijk een pretendent. I-are-baboon (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Again, he is not a German pretender, he is in the line of succession to the Headship of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, but he is not the pretender for the house of Wettin. And I would be very happy if we could somehow get rid of "our" royal family, as I believe it to be a system from medieval times. Pevernagie (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with your beliefs but with facts. I will correct it then to Saxe-Coburg Gotha. I-are-baboon (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is the head of the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha. Pevernagie (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels

I believe this actually wasn't vandalism, the editor was most likely changing the spelling to what he/she thought was correct, at least to American spelling standards. Presumably the editor isn't familiar with WP:ENGVAR, so I would therefore say the edit was done in good faith. You may wish to retract this statement. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

very well. Pevernagie (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I try to put template:Brusselsname on the talk page of pages where I use that as the rationale in an edit. It links to the actual conventions. Cheers, Oreo Priest ^talk 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Brasova

I've moved the discussion to the talk page of the article and requested a third opinion as a first step in re-assessing the section. DrKiernan (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; could you give your opinion here? Thanks! --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Basil Zaharoff.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Basil Zaharoff.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand's smoking

You have recently deleted an addition I made to the Wikipedia article about Ayn Rand. I had added the fact that Rand was a lifelong smoker to the sentence about the surgical removal of one of her lungs because of cancer. You found this unconstructive. What is unconstructive about it? Rand WAS a lifelong smoker (see the photograph of her holding a cigarette in the article!), and died of cancer because of this habit of hers. Are you a representative of a tobacco company perhaps? If you are, then I can understand why you would find "scientifically unproven" connections between heavy smoking and lung cancer to be "unconstructive". Otherwise, there is nothing unconstructive about mentioning in an article about Ayn Rand that she was a smoker. Smoking was very much a part of who she was, and if I'm not mistaken, she actually even wrote or said something about this at one time. Many of the heroes of her novels smoke. She was never far from a cigarette herself. Her voice was that of a heavy smoker. To mention that she was a smoker is not unconstructive, especially in reference to her lung cancer. Please refrain from frivolous editing in the future. I intend to put the phrase back in the article, except that I will change the word "lifelong" to "heavy", since after thinking about it, I realize that she probably did not smoke much in the first decade of her life at least. But the fact that she was a "heavy" smoker is absolutely incontrovertible, and hence quite a constructive element in any biography of her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.97.117 (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are addressing the wrong user, but for your personal attack on me (even if it is a case of mistaken identity) you just deserved an additional warning. As to your edit, if you were to quote the smoking from her biography, I see no point why it should not be allowed to be put on the page. Pevernagie (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gemeenschapsonderwijs

I removed your prod. It exists and has an article in Dutch. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I placed it because of the low quality of the article. If someone could translate the article from Dutch to English, it would have an acceptable quality, what is written on the en.wikipedia.org page is utter gibberish. "they generally receive more money than catholic schools", says what official report? "most beautiful atheneum is the atheneum of Antwerp" again, where does this come from? It has been 4 years, and we are still waiting for sources! Pevernagie (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs work. I requested expert help and will keep an eye on it. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Sit Down, Shut Up Season 1

Template:Infobox Sit Down, Shut Up Season 1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Sit Down, Shut Up Season 2

Template:Infobox Sit Down, Shut Up Season 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A2 tagging

When you tag an article with CSD A2 you are supposed to include the link to the article that exists on the other project. Now given that the user importing these articles is moving them from the Italian Wikipedia with edit summaries along the lines of transwiki for translation and attribution I think that your mass tagging is inappropriate. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, those pages have been in Italian since 2005, how long should one wait for it to be appropriate to tag pages for deletion when they are in another language. Twinkle didn't give me the option of adding comments, so I couldn't include them. The moment I clicked on A2 it went straight to work tagging the page.Pevernagie (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the revision history of one example, the article was transwikied in November and the previous history is that of the Italian Wikipedia. I'm glad you've changed to tagging to {{notEnglish}} to bring them to the attention of our various translators. I'll grant you, the person who imported the articles should have done that. As for Twinkle not asking for the URL, that appears to be a bug. Will investigage. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop!

Please, please, please stop tagging articles for deletion without providing some context for administrators. I have no idea how to find the 'other language articles' on other projects and links would be most welcome. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of those pages are 1) in Italian and 2) Copy-pasted from the it.wiki . This has been the case since 2005! About the not including of context, I wasn't given that option by Twinkle, is there way that you can do this with Twinkle? About the many many tagging, I was unsure if they would all be treated if I only tagged one or two, so I went ahead and tagged all pages that were in Italian (again since 2005).Pevernagie (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stop deleting fukung article

it is not unambiguous promotion or advertising, in fact there is none whatsoever. It is simply an explanation for a previously unexplained website, one that is increasingly and arguably very popular already, and deserves background information on this website. Please restore the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walterluse (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide the page this was posted on? As I do not have the slightest clue as to which page you are refering. Pevernagie (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) I believe he is referring to this, which I am also dealing with on my talk page. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:200 Belgian Francs front.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:200 Belgian Francs front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:200 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:200 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:500 Belgian Francs front.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:500 Belgian Francs front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:500 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:500 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:1000 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1000 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:2000 Belgian Francs front.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2000 Belgian Francs front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:2000 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2000 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:10000 Belgian Francs front.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:10000 Belgian Francs front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:10000 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:10000 Belgian Francs reverse.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:1000 Belgian Francs front.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1000 Belgian Francs front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Pevernagie. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:26, 29 February 2012 (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) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pevernagie. 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, Pevernagie. 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 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:UnionFrancophones.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UnionFrancophones.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:L'île des mers gelées.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:L'île des mers gelées.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Naji moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Nadia Naji. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nadia Naji for deletion

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

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]