Smiloid

Welcome, Smiloid!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

• Wikipedia:Five pillars
• Wikipedia:Policy trifecta
• Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun editing! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Stop unilaterally moving pages. You are causing chaos to links and redirects. If you want to move a page, propose it at Wikipedia:Requested moves and let a vote take place. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 15:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Be bold, and go ahead and move the page if you are sure it needs to be moved. It isn't really necessary to request a move. Only request a move if you believe a move would be controversial. Otherwise, you place an unnecessary load on the community. Be sure to check for double-redirects though, and go clean up the mess yourself. Just a second opinion regarding the above harsh comment. In my opinion, nobody has the right to give orders like that, and it's on the very edge of what I consider civil behavior. User:Pedant 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I notice you contributed a bit to the tarot article. The article is being nominated for improvement here. Please vote if you wish to do so. :) Sam 22:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I added a "little" comment to the discussion in Talk:Tarot. -- Parsa 09:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Smiloid, I added dozens of inline templates (and one section template) to the Tarot article. Feel free to add more or alter the tone of the ones I added! Even if the article is only about Tarot divination, it still has many paragraphs that are uncited, reflect personal opinion, or appear to be original research. - Parsa 23:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the revert in Tarot. If templates are added to improve an article, removing them is borderline vandalism. Instead, the sources need to be found to remove the template tags. The problem is that the editors from occult backgrounds are largerly basing their knowledge on hearsay and non-academic sources. Even the Encyclopedia of Tarot is not a reliable source. There are academic works on Tarot origins, history and even use for occult purposes, but none of these editors seems to have seen the books. BTW, note that I changed the web links to more of an historical nature rather than the "how to interpret Tarot cards" types. - Parsa 22:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Note: Since your revert was itself reverted, I added some new tags: {{vc}} which gives the template: [this source's reliability may need verification]. Two of the authors of the single reference source have a PhD and a Masters, but that doesn't mean they are credible to write a book on card history. I seriously doubt if this book went through a university press, peer review, etc. - Parsa 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Yes, this is something that needed to be done. I've looked at the first two paragraphs and it does appear that improvements are being madeSmiloid 07:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

He he, actually I did the edit on the first two paragraphs. I bet some will absolutely hate it. However the article needs to be balanced, and it's far from it.

Another issue that I have found is that each and every Tarot card has a page, and they are even worse than the Tarot article. They are so clearly un-encyclopedic it's not funny. Check out the cards by going to this Template: Template:Major_Arcana. I added the tags on top and a note in each talk page. What a pain. I hope you can add your contributions. Worse than the above, some guy created templates for each suit and is listing every single tarot pip card. I think the articles and the categories should be recommended for deletion. How many academic sources can you find talking about one pip card? It will definitely all be occult nonsense.

Category:Suit_of_Wands

Category:Suit_of_Coins

Category:Suit_of_Swords

Category:Suit_of_Cups

Most have had no content but a copyrighted image in six months, which could qualify for speedy deletion.

- Parsa 09:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes! I too have noticed this. Wands should be Batons. I do think all this is unnecessary and perhaps it does warrant deletion. Can you imagine a single article for individual cards like "ace of hearts" in the playing card section? or a single page devoted to the pawn in the game of chess. Yes it is ridiculous!Wikipedia is not a dictionary or so they saySmiloid 08:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You've nominated a few things for speedy deletion as blatant copyright violations, but didn't mention where the copyrighted material was copied from. Please include that information. Wodup 06:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Minor Arcana article was one of those you tagged, but the article has been on Wikipedia for many years. It is possible that the source you found was actually a copy of the Wikipedia article. Unless you give the source, the article will not be deleted.-gadfium 08:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I probably did not do this correctly, but there are some copyrighted images which are falsely indentified as being PD in the States. Here's an example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pents13.jpg One can plainly see the the copyright notice "(c) 1971 US Games" on the lower right corner. Smiloid 22:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The uploader claims the image was first created in 1909. If this is true, then the claim of copyright on the image itself is probably void. I'll mark the image as needing investigation, and let someone more experienced at dealing with image copyrights deal with it.-gadfium 22:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've added it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 February 11/Images.-gadfium 22:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. The word got picked up by firefox's spell checker, so i'd assumed it wasn't a real word. Guess i probably should have checked on google first before editing it out. --`/aksha 07:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

Just wanted to give you the heads-up that I've taken off the noncompliant tags from the Major Arcana articles. I agree with the points you made about them needing improvement, but feel that template was a too extreme, and have changed it to a clean-up request. As the articles are so similar, I suggest we discuss how to proceed with improving these articles at Talk:Major Arcana. Hope to see you there!

Cheers --jwanders^Talk 22:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I replied to that page saying I disagreed with the removal. Nothing has changed. The articles are still original research and un-encyclopedic. Parsa 20:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I noticed that someone changed the pronounciation of Alejandro Jodorowsky from Jodorowski to Hodorowski - can you give a reference to the original pronounciation? Thanks, SyP 09:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Having seen what you've started to do with the tarot card articles, I'd suggest that you go through the stub proposal procedure and get a proper stub tag sorted out. As is, including all of the Minor Arcana, this would give 56 articles that could be marked with that stub, close to the 60 that seems to be the general guidelines. I will, however, leave this up to you to handle this proposal if you want to do so, just thought that I'd suggest it. Cheers! Craw-daddy 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think the template is worthwhile, and I made comments to that effect on WP:WSS/D. Of course it is good advice to try to assess consensus on any new major change. (see my comment on moving articles above) Don't feel like you have to ask permission for every change, just get a good sense of what the impact will be before you make a change and you should be all right. 'welcome to wikipedia', it's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. User:Pedant 22:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Don't you want to translate the page from the german wikipedia? If you go over Wikipedia:Translations that would be great. (Micha L. Rieser) --62.202.30.86 20:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC) That's a great idea, Thanks. I've also started an article on Cego I'll take both articles to the Translations section Smiloid 04:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for saving me the effort of deleting it. Although I don't often get a chance to be bold, so I shall have to go and be bold elsewhere now... sigh. Cheers! Gillyweed 22:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

f.y.i. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troggu --62.202.30.86 22:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Danke Smiloid 19:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I used to be an atheist, but I gave it up. No holidays. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC) LOLSmiloid (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why have you replaced all the non copyrighted tarot card images with copyrighted ones and then tried to get the images deleted as copyright violations? Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

At the time I proposed deletion which was quite a while back, I was not as informed as to their copyright status. That particular issue has been settled. I am confident that these newer Rider Waite Major Arcana images are in public domain. The images that were formerly used to illustrate the Rider Waite Major Arcana are b&w images colorized by Wikipedia users. I thought it would be better to illustrate the articles with more authentic images than ones entirely created by Wikipedia editors.Smiloid (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I have been away and was catching up on what has happened in the articles I watch and wasn't able to quite trace the trail of this to find out what happened in the end. Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fuzzypeg deserves some credit for resolving this copyright quagmire. He uploaded some new Rider Waite images here which are both authentic and public domainSmiloid (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is it just me, or did your user page suffer from some editing? It seems you were rickrolled for instance, or did you do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsa (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, I did it. It was intended as a jest! It was inspired by a dispute over whether an actual link to the 2g1c video was appropriate for the article on that topicSmiloid (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Currently trump directs to a disambiguation page, but I feel it should go to the article on the term as used for card games. [That Trump (card game) article needs a lot of work by the way.] Please add your opinions: Talk:Trump
Personally, I think "Minor Arcana" should be deleted, but it probably wont be. However, Major Arcana should be called "Tarot trumps", and should be a special article off the main trump page. Most of the content on Major Arcana is gone, and most of the content of Minor Arcana is fluff. I actually support articles on each of the tarot trump cards, but I oppose the articles on the pip and face cards. BTW, there is an article on Pawn (chess)! I joined in on the dispute discussion by the way.
--Parsa (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not the best of April Fools Jokes on United States, there. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm surprised it stayed there as long as it did. It stayed there for nearly a half hour,LOLSmiloid (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Inside Tarot, tarock, and tarocchi games and inside da:Tarot (spillekort) is SHORT interwiki set that interlinks game-emphasion related articles, while inside Tarot is LONG interwiki set which links to cartomancy-emphasion articles. Please do not intermingle these two interwiki sets because they are now clearly separated, or bots will in worst case chaotically intermingle them across all Wikipedias and in best case they will remove da:Tarot (spillekort). Because of this, da:Tarot (spillekort) must be not present in Tarot article. Contributions/83.21.173.76 (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The English version tarot is centered on the cards themselves and their uses in cartomancy AND game playing, while the article tarot divination is more focused on cartomancy. That Danish language version da:Tarot (spillekort) also covers both game playing and cartomancy and I see no reason why the Danish language article should not also be included. There is also a problem with the Italian version it:Tarocchi The Italian version also covers both game playing and cartomancy. The Danish and Italian Wikipedias only have one article on tarot cards, articles which cover both game playing and cartomancy. Smiloid (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Articles are interwikified already as follows:

• Spillekort=Spielkarte=Playing Card in Danish with gaming graphics in beginning, thus da:Tarot (spillekort) belongs to short gaming interwiki set.
• Without disambiguation in Italian with cartomantic graphics in beginning, thus it:Tarocchi belongs to long cartomantic interwiki set.

Danish language article should not be included UNLESS replacing full interwiki set, because this will confuse bots as I explained above. Contributions/83.21.173.76 (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Even when I created across all wikis separate Tarot and Tarot divination interwiki sets, da:Tarot (spillekort) still can't be included because of undeniable belonging of it to gaming set defined by Spillekort=Spielkarte=Playing Card in its name. Now exists three interwiki sets:

• in Tarot and related wikis - general cards
• in Tarot divination and related wikis - cartomancy
• in Tarot, tarock, and tarocchi games and related wikis - game

79.191.242.220 (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was searching online on what arcana means. Arcana is actually a plural word for Arcanum, a Latin word that means "secret" because they reveal secrets. I went on and had a read on their opinion about minor and major arcana. Here is what I found, "Where the Major Arcana cards are thought of as the "power" cards or big players in a reading, the Minor Arcana serve in supportive roles and augment the reading with further insight and detail of circumstances." www.tarotteachings.com/minor-arcana-tarot-card-meanings.html. Does this help answer your question? Shall I find a more encyclopaedic type of reference that states this, and then add it in the article? :) Sweetsoul (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's an interesting way to explain it. The trouble with that website though, is that it is more commercial than encyclopedic. If we are to source the meanings of these cards, I think it's best we go to the original sources which are found on the Sacred Texts website.[[1]] These meanings began somewhere and we should use the original materials. We should quote directly from Mathers, Waite etc. Smiloid (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Both references in Standard 56-card deck are serving for:

• http://jducoeur.org/game-hist/seaan-cardhist.html - proving of 56 cards deck existence
• http://www.pagat.com/class/french.html - proving of extra pip cards existence

56 card deck is not hoax, because it is referenced, and because David Bellot - creator of knight cards - was too lazy to draw horses, instead limiting himself to make knights from jacks. These knight images always can have added missing horses. 83.21.173.172 (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

There were 56 card decks during the time of the first appearance of tarot cards. However these were Italian or Latin suited decks. I'm disputing the real existence of modern French suited 56 card decks.Smiloid (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Modern French suited 56 card decks are easily obtainable from Tarot Nouveau by omitting trumps when playing card games, as was done in case of Rook. 83.21.173.172 (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article needs some work. For one thing, the 56 card deck is not "standard" so the name is not a good one. There should be mention of these early Latin suited 56 card decks because they are more notable than a variant created by David Bellot. There should be a source for the term "knight cards" Mentions of the Tarot Nouveau and Rook cards should also be included.Smiloid (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

56 card deck is standard in sense of using already existing French Tarot standard as opposed to nonstandard decks like Nuclear War (card game). Word "knightly" is used for card difference from poker deck in first set, as word "elevenal" is used for card difference from poker deck in second set. 83.21.173.172 (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

One problem with the term "standard" is that the article illustrates two different ways of making such a deck, 1)add an extra court card as in a tarot deck, or 2)add extra pip card. Which one is the "standard?"Smiloid (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Of course standard is adding of extra court card, because it has predecessor in French Tarot. Nonstandard is adding extra pip card because it has no predecessor in anything. 83.21.173.172 (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Category:Films with stereophonic soundtracks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you copyedit and make text in fr:Jeux de tarot comprehensible - it can be deleted because of non-comprehensibility. French text is translated directly from en:Tarot, tarock, tarocchi (card games). I know French very poorly. 79.191.100.175 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid it wouldn't be quite feasible. While I can read the French language reasonable well, I don't write in the language very well. Smiloid (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's bad, and article probably will be deleted. 79.191.100.175 (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article The New York Rocker has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I found zero sources for this New York Rocker.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (Sugar Bear (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC))Reply

You should assume good faith. It seems that everyone of your edits to the article on that ICP Miracles song accuses every other editor of vandalismSmiloid (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Miracles" is not an anti-science song. It's a song about how amazing things in life are often overlooked. The single line you mention is not enough to qualify it as an anti-science song, especially considering that it was a joke. And there are no sources identifying it as an Internet meme. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC))Reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Once again, I've added templates in articles and sections on some of the individual tarot cards. In particular, I added them so far to The Fool (Tarot card), The Magician (Tarot card), and The Star (Tarot card). I'll likely add more to other card articles. I did have templates before, but they were removed without improving the articles tagged. Most of these card articles need to be completely rewritten. I may do one in a sandbox page and show it to you. The amount of cruft and unreliable source material is increasing, and the articles are becoming much worse, not better. Even citing Waite is not sufficient since his work is not really secondary source material, let alone academic. I would include Kaplan, although some of his stuff is pretty darned iffy as well. I don't mind information on occult uses, but the sources have to be real reliable, and verifiable sources. What sources do you have that could be used? I have most of Michael Dummett's ( and Ronald Decker's) books available, including The Game of Tarot and the two occult tarot books. I hope you'll support me in improving these articles. — ★Parsa (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns?

I've been ordered to fix the page so that it accords with my understanding of the NPOV policy. I'm happy to do that but I have a lot of work at my job.

Now I've been told that I must make the changes by April 30th or the NPOV tag will be removed. I simply can't learn how to use Wikipedia as a newcomer, become familiar with all the sources, and make the edits if I must do it all by April 30th.

Would you look over the Theosophy page? Also, can you recommend anything? Thanks much,Factseducado (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

 Template:George Barris has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Louise Allbritton, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Charles Collingwood, Son of Dracula and Sitting Pretty (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) 11:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history at Tarot shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Aoidh (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've made a comment on the Tarot talk page. You have not made a case as to why reference to those cartoon tarot decks are any more trivial than the Marvel comics are any of the other ones. My case is that they are historically important because they are the FIRST of their kind.Smiloid (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

You don't have to repeat a comment in multiple locations, use the article's talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I thought you removed the tarot article from the Vital Articles list, when in fact you just moved it, which is fine. Cobblet (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's all good. I've withdrawn my proposal for its removal. I think it should be listed as a VA but under a more suitable heading.Smiloid (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Greeting Smiloid, I'd like to ask you to weigh in on renaming the article that is presently named "Tarotology". I am suggesting it is renamed to Tarot Reading. Thanks. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Fédération Française de Tarot requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:FFToldLogo.png. 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) 03:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The article U.S. Games Systems has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. No parent or related target to merge (and all content is unreferenced).

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [2] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the invitation Smiloid (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Smiloid, thank you for your contributions to the area of Tarot games and playing cards. I thought I should just let you know that I've undone some of your recent category edits because, in each case, the pack/deck was covered in a subcategory. The categories are organised that way so that readers can either view packs used for games or those used for divination rather than a mix of the two. Of course, at least one, the Tarot de Marseille; is in both since it was the pack being used to play games that was spotted by de Gebelin and gave him the idea of using Tarot cards for cartomancy. Like you, I use them for their original purpose: games and I'm very happy to collaborate on that. I've been trying to unpick the two uses of Tarot cards as they were hopelessly interwoven, but there is more to be done. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC) The divination should also be in their own category as well. A category for ONLY divinatory tarots should be named as such Smiloid (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Thanks we have both fixed the tarot decks category Smiloid (talk)○Reply

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply