Cableguytk

Do not remove comments from talk pages

Please do not remove legitimate messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of legitimate communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. Thanks. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, do not remove comments from talk pages

Your user page is for you. This user talk page is for other Wikipedians to talk to and about you. The above policy issues should be maintained here as a record of past issues concerning your interactions with Wikipedia. --Dachannien 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh

95% of the communication on this talk page is automated response for lack of proper copyright for some images.

A) I admit that I did not provide proper copyright. B) The images are not even in use anymore. This was not a decision based on copyright, rather the author of the article felt the images were unnecessary. C) DELETE THE IMAGES ALREADY! I don't need that stuff here.

"Your user page is for you. This user talk page is for other Wikipedians to talk to and about you." Thats fine. Go ahead and talk. I don't need 20 messages from a bot telling me the copyright information on unused images (which are probably deleted by now) is improper.

Those worthless records about copyright are in the history. They are not necessary to be posted here any longer.

Please protect Spyware terminator from being deleted.

---

Hi there, thanks a lot for contributing towards developing the article. but please note that it was a tough time restoring this article after it was deleted and as soon as it was out, it has been marked for deletion regarded as an advertisement. first and foremost, i have been advised by admin / experienced wiki writers that 1) we should forget what we know about the product, 2) whatever we write should be based on third party references (only reference from the product's associates is not enough) 3) vocabulary used should never look like it is advertising or promoting the product.

From the first view, people have been thinking that we are trying to advertise the product here which is not our basic idea we are just trying to give an intro about the product here.

Please help keeping the article alive by keeping the above in mind when u write more - and please do not take this personally, didnt mean to hurt , just trying to keep the page alive, thats all - coz it is likely if this time this is deleted they would just blank the page altogether and not restore it again. it is already being considered spam / advert, so we need to be careful with what we are writing in there.

thanks a lot Rajeshontheweb 06:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

One venue at a time

Do not try to list Spyware Terminator at AfD. It is already at WP:DRV. That is sufficient. Thank you. Chick Bowen 04:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. That's his position at the DRV--if that turns out to be the consensus, then the closing admin will relist it at that time. But it has to finish up at one before it can start the other. Thanks again. Chick Bowen 04:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Spyware Terminator

• See User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Deletion_review_for_Spyware_Terminator. There is confusion between page Spyware terminator and page Spyware Terminator. Anthony Appleyard 05:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• See User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Deletion_review_for_Spyware_Terminator again. Anthony Appleyard 05:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is now sat on your user page as it was messing up the format at DRV. Please nudge me on my talk page if you want it deleting or moving somewhere. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

the way to keep

If you can find and add some product reviews from independent sources, the article could probably be kept. Let me know if you do that. Web is OK, but not a blog.DGG 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Softpedia for deletion

The article Softpedia is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Softpedia (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article.. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)