Haakon

QA Wizard Pro deleted?

Your nomination of this page which did not satisfy wikipedia's criteria based on "not noteworthy" was successful in killing information about this tool. But why stop there? There's a bunch more tools similiar which are far less noteworthy listed on this page: List of GUI testing tools including Test Complete. Tried my best to provide inciteful article about an easy-to-use script recording tool for GUI testing that's been around since early 1990's, but sometimes good isn't good enough apparently. SlightlybentOR (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

BugNET nomination for deletion?

Hi Haakon, I am not sure what is wrong with my newly added page for BugNET. You suggest BugNET has no information except for a URL that leads to a blog which also has no information. I provided the link: http://bugnetproject.com/ which goes to the homepage for the free software product. That page links to FAQ, Documentation, Features, Download, Forum which explains the product in detail. A google search will show it is a legitimate FOSS offering with plenty of history and every reason to appear in wiki. The main reason I added the page is because I added BugNET to this comparison page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems Since that table had no valid link, I quickly added a page. I am not the creator of the product so I posted in the products forum requesting that the creator or other more knowledgable person could edit the page to finish it and fix any mistakes I made. So even if there is legitimate reason to delete the page, it should atleast sit there for a little while to allow enthusiasts to complete the entry. I have just started using the product and it is quite good, but I did not find it quickly becuase there was no wiki entry, hence my actions. Please comment to let me know what you make of the whole deal. GregDude (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC).

Please see what's written in the AfD itself. I did not say that the article has no information, but that it does not have sources indicating significant coverage in reliable third-party publications, which is a requirement. Haakon (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. However I think you should agree that the changes and additions I have made during today now exceed the requirement for significant coverage in reliable third-party publications If not, please explain further. By the way, the product developers are now aware of the page and have begun contributing to it. GregDude (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are rarely counted as reliable sources.

Anyway, I am just one person; the point of the AfD process is to gather consensus. As such, it would be more useful if you could argue your points on the AfD page instead of here. Thanks. Haakon (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

pixetell article for your review

Hello Haakon:

My name is Dan Cook. I'm contacting you because you've worked on the Pixetell article in the past. I work for the company that produces the software and have also worked on the article. I have been learning more about Wikipedia so that we may have a page there that is informative and objective. I have posted a proposed rewrite for the article in my user space which I believe is a general improvement over the article you commented on. I hope this version addresses the concerns in the tags at the top of the page. Please take a look if you have a moment. (See link at Talk:Pixetell.) -Dan Cook 20:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook (talk • contribs)

CredAbility.Info page marked to be, and subsequently deleted

Hi Haakon. I am confused. None of the comments made about the page are technically incorrect, we do see it as an excellent medium to push traffic to our site, so it could be considered advertising. However I am at a loss as to how 50% of Wikipedia has not also been deleted. As a bi-product of our page being removed, we have also been removed from the page referenced Comparison_of_project_management_software and yet the other 75+ references on that page, all still have their Wikipedia pages present, even though one of them has been marked as "defunct".

Notability is difficult to establish, so we havent got a huge amount of press or 3rd party references, but so what. Our registered users in Mexico, Canada, the US, and across Denmark, Spain, the UK and Northern Ireland are all happy with their usage of our software. That the Wikipedia Editors have not heard of us, does not make it not Notable, and to delete one and leave the other 75 is unreasonable.

Comments were made when the page was first launched by several editors, these were dealt with through improvements to the page. Since then we have had a very stable few months and have not actively managed the pageas we were happy with its content and had nothing further to add.

Can you offer any suggestions on how the page can be improved in order to bring it back or request a deletion review ??

Craiggolby (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2010 (GMT)

There is only one option for requesting a deletion review, which is coincidentally also the only option for demonstrating notability: Point to instances of significant coverage in reliable, third-party publications. If these do not exist, then there is nothing that can and should be done. Haakon (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting reference thanks, but two blocks further down, it states under the heading "Notability is not temporary" ... "a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage."... We must have had adequate notability references when the article was first published as this was accepted at the time, this point indicates that the coverage does not need to be ongoing, so I am still at a loss. There will be more articles in the future, we are sure.

If one of my Clients was willing to provide an independant reference would this be adequate, and in what format should it be provided ? Craiggolby (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.165.10 (talk)

No, it doesn't work like that; articles aren't "accepted" at any time if nobody deletes them. Look at the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CredAbility.info. If you can find references (in reliable sources) that would have changed the outcome there, then you can bring it up for deletion review. Haakon (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Before I request a Temporary Undelete so that we can retrieve the content, and a Deletion Review, process dictates that I ask you to reconsider the deletion... If we need to modify the article in someway, then we can do so if this will help. Craiggolby (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It was the clear consensus of our community to delete the article. It's not up to me to reconsider the deletion. You can possibly ask the deleting admin to recover the article into your own user space, where you can work on it. Haakon (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

BugNET deletion?

Hi Haakon, why on earth did you start and conclude the whole BugNET deletion? By your standards, every single entry in this table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue_tracking_systems should be deleted along with their individual pages. Exactly what personal problem do you have with the BugNET application or its authors? Since every single article in that table breaches the standard with which you judged the page I initiated, I'm looking forward to hearing your justification. I remind you that I am not affiliated with BugNET in any way. GregDude (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not "start and conclude" the deletion; the article was deleted by the consensus of our community, for the reasons stated there. It is not a value judgment on the application or its developers, but on the apparent lack of notability of the product. Other articles suffer from this same problem; hopefully they can be sorted through eventually. Haakon (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

By 'start and conclude' I meant that you initiated the motion for deletion (start) and you deleted the comparison table entries (conclude). The final article met or exceeded the requirements of notability and it did so at least to the extent of the other items in the comparison table. I have repeatedly asked you to be specific as to exactly what requirements were in lacking and you have repeatedly just referenced the wiki guide. Surely you have some evidence to justify your actions. If wikipedia is not a place for a comparison list of software products and descriptions of each that is fine, but treat each one equally. The so called 'community' did not form a consensus. The discussion page was a farce of a few random people saying the page looked a bit like an advertisement or did not have a lot of merit for its existence. During its few days of existence hundreds of people visited the page and made use of the comparison table. I added the page in the first place because the product was so obviously lacking from the list despite independent reviews, years of development and hundreds of active users and supporters. I realize you posted your deletion request while I was in the middle of writing the article (hence the TODOs), not waiting until the full page was complete. You made no effort to voice support for my and other peoples efforts to resolve the initial inadequacies nor did you or any person in the discussion make a specific claim against the article.124.171.199.245 (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion because, to the best of my ability, I could not find any significant coverage in reliable third-party publications. This is an absolute requirement for encyclopedia coverage in Wikipedia. I am aware that there exists other articles that do not comply with this, but personally I am just one single person and I don't have the capacity to go through the millions of articles on Wikipedia all on my own. Wikipedia is a work in progress and is not internally consistent yet. If you think the closing administrator made the wrong decision, you can put it up for a deletion review. Haakon (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm accepting that you were only trying to do the right thing in your opinion. I will ask you 2 more questions. 1) Why were the links to 3rd party independent reviews/articles not considered 'significant coverage'? They were of course added later, but well within the controversy period. 2) Why did you remove the BugNET entries from the comparison table on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems ? I would like to restore it. If it is solely due to the fact that there is not linked article, well we both know why that is the case. Would you remove Bing from a list of search engines because it is not as popular as Google and not as old? (rhetorical question)124.171.199.245 (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

1) As far as I can remember, the coverage was not in reliable sources, and/or did not seem significant enough to change anyone's mind. 2) Products with articles are usually not listed in comparison tables, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also see Wikipedia:Write the Article First. Haakon (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be correct that the list was not reliable enough. I have found 3 3rd party references but they are not exactly New York Times reputations. Rather than a immediate deletion motion, a orange tag requesting better references would have been preferred. I notice other similar articles carry such a tag, highlighting the fact so future authors can improve the article, which I believe is part of the point of wiki... collaborative improvement over time. GregDude (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for sounding angry before. I am new to wikipedia and thought that the content I was adding was being unfairly singled out.GregDude (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

EPiServer deletion

Hi Haakon!

You started the deletion process for the page EPiServer and also removed the entry from List_of_content_management_systems. I'm not sure what is needed to qualify as notable software on Wikipedia but in my opinion EPiServer CMS does. As an example an analyst CMS_Watch list it among the Mid-range platforms [[1]] in their "The Web CMS Report 2010".

The community consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPiServer (2nd nomination) was that your product is not notable. For notability requirements, please see WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Blue Software

When I logged in this morning, it said 'This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it.' so I added relevant pages, was this not the right thing to do? please advise OceanBlue2010 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you have a gigantic conflict of interest and should not be editing Wikipedia on topics relating to your company at all. Haakon (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

AccuRev deleted from Comparison of revision control systems

I was looking for info comparing VCS, and saw the conspicuous absence of AccuRev. The history showed you recently deleted it saying "Removing non-notables (as in products without their own Wikipedia articles))". I disagree that AccuRev is non-notable. It certainly does have its own Wikipedia article, and I thought it was a fairly well known commercial solution. We use it on my current project, and it's a great, mature tool. I would appreciate it if you put it back or provided better justification for removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.253.26.10 (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Codesion and Comparison of open source software hosting facilities

Hi Haakon,

I'm curious to know why you reverted my recent changes to the "Comparison of open source software hosting facilities" page?

Mbdude (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As I stated in the edit summary: because it was a redlink. Please see WP:WTAF. Entries should not be added if they don't have their own Wikipedia articles. Haakon (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISL Online

Please take a look at the message I left here on the deletion of the article.

Jure pompe (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Reference to Social Networking Software package

Dear Haakon,

I have noticed you have removed a non-link reference to Jouzz.com that I have included in the vendor enumeration of the Enterprise Social Software article. To verify that this is a real company that provides a real product (Jouzz) in the Enterprise Social Software category, I invite you to visit the www.jouzz.com website. Also, please feel free to send me any questions that you may have about it. Since I was planning to write a brief and objective article about the Jouzz product, I look forward to your response. Many thanks in advance. Sincerely,

Evilches (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether your company or product is real, but that entries to products without their own Wikipedia articles should not be included. This is to keep non-notable entries out. See WP:WTAF. Thanks. Haakon (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Aria2 (not noteworthy)

I noted your removal of Aria2 from Comparison of download managers as not noteworthy. Is there a proper way to add this back to the list?

Here is my dilemma - I do not know enough about Aria2 to write a definitive article on it, but it is a reasonably well established and useful tool. IMHO, it is conspicuously missing from the comparison page. In fact, when I didn't see it in the list, it cast doubt on the usefulness of the page. I assumed that the page was being maintained by someone with insufficient knowledge of the topic.

Can Aria2 (actually Aria2c) be added back along with a footnote reference for instance? I agree that it would be ideal for it to have it's own article, but I believe that policy, in this case, tends to unfairly discriminate against Open Source projects. While a popular commercial product will have a marketing person to ensure that proper press releases are made, open source projects - even good ones - tend to be weak in this area.

I would appreciate your thoughts and advice. As a footnote to this message, I am not affiliated with Aria - just a user of it.

Jdaskew (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid my stance on this is "rules are rules". As a free software fan myself, I lament the fact that it's harder for small free software projects to gain notability, but Wikipedia is here to cover notable subjects, not to make the subjects notable. That said, if you can find at least one source that fulfulls WP:GNG, I would recommend that you create the article. It doesn't have to be much more than a couple of sentences (+ the references), and don't worry about writing well; we'll take care of that over time :-) Hope this helps a little. Haakon (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and the link to the policies - it is very helpful. My question really becomes whether the list should be only of "notable" download managers. I note that you changed the list from "various" to "notable" about 7 months ago (Diff - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_download_managers&diff=328562068&oldid=326518489). This raised the bar for inclusion from due weight to notable. Download managers are a bit of a niche topic. While I would agree that a list of "Famous Programmers" should be restricted to notable people, I believe that the download managers list should be pegged to a somewhat more relaxed standard. My suggestion would be "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" in WP:LSC. Would this be an appropriate topic for the article's talk page, or was your change part of a larger effort - perhaps a directive from one of the cleanup projects? Does an opportunity exist to build consensus on the scope of the list? Jdaskew (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please raise this on the article's talk page, since it's not up to me alone :-) I disagree that "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" applies here; there are probably literally thousands of download managers in the world, and the list would be neither short nor complete, and would be extremely unmanageable due to spam. Lists all over Wikipedia are restricted to notable (as in having Wikipedia articles) entries for this reason. Haakon (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

CyaSSL Article Nominated for Deletion

Hakkon, I noticed that you had nominated my article, CyaSSL, for deletion. I was wondering if you could move it back into my user space so that I may edit further, or instruct me on how to do so? Thank You. Chris conlon (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the best approach during the AfD is to move the article to your userspace after the AfD is closed, if the result is to delete. Doing it before would break the process. However, I'm not an admin and I'm not familiar with what is usually done in these cases. Pages are moved by selecting "Move" from the top menu (right next to the search field in the new theme), but you have to have been a user for some time before you can use it.

Also note that you are free to edit the article as much as you want during the AfD. If you can add some sources it would be helpful towards making a decision. Haakon (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mantis Bug Tracker name details revert

Hi, you reverted information that was supposed to clarify that "Mantis" itself is the one tracking and catching bugs. That's why I added that information. Yes, Mantidae are bugs themselves, but the intelligent part of the naming (in my view) is, that Mantidae are lurking for bugs, you see? A program to track bugs <-> insects that track bugs. See their spiked forelegs!? Predators hunting bugs. In the version you reverted the idea is lost again, in fact in this version the information appears a bit unhelpful to me. Maybe you could have edited out the "random" or "unhelpful" part of the information I added and leave the clarification in? I know, that's more work than just reverting, but obviously I couldn't keep it brief enough, but still I believe that this bit of information would enhance the name section in that article. 129.247.247.239 (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I was a bit rushed, sorry. I reverted myself now. My apologies for responding to your good faith with such language. Haakon (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! 129.247.247.239 (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Go (software) page

Hi, Please do respond.

Thanks! Teresa

Hi, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa.ann.g (talk • contribs) 20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

95% the references cited are to external sources (valid IT news and info sites). It contains no descriptive information that is unsubstantiated or any marketing material. Please let me know why it is tagged as such?

Thanks! Teresa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.16.156 (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The conflict of interest notice does not imply that there is unsubstantiated material in the article. It points out that someone with a conflict of interest has edited the article, which is a problem. Please see WP:COI, and please reconsider working on articles related to an organisation you work for. Thanks! Haakon (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Plastic SCM

Sorry for the references to the company's website on the Plastic SCM page. I'm relatively new to editing and after researching some other edits realized (before I noticed your revert) that I should have used a <ref> tag where they were actually referenced. Is it acceptable to use references to a company's own website for actual linked references that point to where information is shown on the company's site? Just FYI, I don't work for them, but do use the software. Thanks for your help. -Keith (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources cited should be independent of the subject as far as possible. A link to the company website is of course no problem and is encouraged, but in my opinion, deep-linking to the company's own promotional resources is rarely appropriate. I hope this helps, and let me know if can help in any way. Haakon (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I added a software infobox on the Plastic SCM article. I assume that's ok. I noticed that Plastic SCM has previously been listed on Comparison of revision control software and you removed the reference added by a different user. I understand that at that time there was no Plastic SCM article, but is it ok to add it back in now that there is an article for Plastic SCM? I don't want to re-add something that was reverted without discussing it. Thanks! -Keith (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

YouTrack

You added a conflict of interest template to YouTrack. Your comment stated that it was a company employee who made the edits. The template suggests that there will be a discussion about this on the talk page, but you didn't start a discussion there, particularly nothing to back your accusation that the editor is a company employee. Would you mind filling-in some details? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was clear from the existing content of the talk page, but I added my justification now. Thanks. Haakon (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pragyan CMS article nominated for deletion ?

Hi Haakon, I don't understand why you have nominated the article for deletion. As of the notability signs, there are several. You can find it on the existing article on wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/Pragyan . Moreover, there is the sourceforge official website: http://pragyan.sourceforge.net . For the websites which have been using Pragyan CMS, you can check out http://www.nitt.edu and http://www.pragyan.org/08 . The Pragyan TRAC is also accessible from http://www.pragyan.org/trac

Please tell me what is exactly lacking in my article that you've nominated it for deletion. I've not finished the article completely and I'm still gathering references. What points of notability this article has not met ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.44.15 (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Translation of a Norwegian article: Trial and conviction of Arne Treholt

I am considering translating the article, http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treholt-saken. What should such an English article be named? (There must be a better name, than "Treholt-case"?

There is an article called Trial and conviction of Alfred Dreyfus. So maybe a similarly named article, is the way to go.

And thank you for your previous valuable contributions, to this website.

--S(l)ick nation (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Move of Price Comparison Service

Haakon, I just proposed that we move price comparison service to comparison shopping engine. I noticed you've been involved with the page before, so you may want to join the discussion. Take care! —Neil 07:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of You're Nicked! for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article You're Nicked! 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/You're Nicked! 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 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. Fuddle (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2015 (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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cross Registry Information Service Protocol

The article Cross Registry Information Service Protocol has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{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} 10:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Haakon. 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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Haakon. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Draumir

The article Draumir has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BAND. The only coverage in a major publication is this opinion piece, other than that, it's just MySpace and LinkedIn-type links, none of which confer notability.

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. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Haakon. 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)

"Google Generation" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Google Generation. Since you had some involvement with the Google Generation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hi Haakon, I do have a question for you regarding an article found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software please do message me at amirmarip@yahoo.com. Thank you!AmirPasc (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:TWiT.tv podcasts has been nominated for merging

Category:TWiT.tv podcasts has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)