|
Hi Froglich, It is my understanding that high explosives are not particularly more energetic than low explosives. They explode in a shorter time (they detonate rather than deflagrate), but they do not provide significantly more energy per unit mass. In any case I explained that concern on the talk page when I added the {{ dubious}} tag, so it would be good to engage the issue there rather than simply removing the tag. -- Trovatore ( talk) 00:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
(Shaw) was a very complicated person who still arouses great passion. The current article is a sincere attempt by a number of editors, over a considerable length of time, to present a balanced summary of the man, while not glossing over some of his more bizarre views and sayings. Totally changing the POV of an article like this may even be justified, but please raise any questions about the current (balanced?) view, and your desire to bring us into line with (say) Conservapedia, on the talk page for the article, rather than making wholesale changes - which are bound to be reverted, if not by me then by some "friends of Shaw" who are much less critical of him than me! -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 23:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is the section various persons keep removing (other editors are requested to boldly revert such deletions):
(snip) At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he suggested the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve their problem. Shaw said:
We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment ...A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them. [1]
Shaw also called for the development of a "deadly" but "humane" gas for the purpose of killing, many at a time, those unfit to live. [2]
In a newsreel interview released on 5 March 1931, dealing with alternatives to the imprisonment of criminals, Shaw says
You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself. [3] [4]
Shaw would publicly expound desires for "humane" extermination into the late 1930s, [5] even as Germany was already well entrenched under the sway of Adolf Hitler (whose antisemitic autobiography Mein Kampf had been in print since 1923, and of which Shaw was still supportive of well into the War. [6]), with anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany having escalated steadily since 1933 (in accordance with the Nazi Party's " 25-Step Program" published in 1920), with German Jews stripped of citizenship in 1935.
In private correspondence to the Fabian socialist Beatrice Webb on February 6, 1938, Shaw was unequivocal in defense of government-orchestrated extermination of "undesirables", but concerned with portrayal and avoidance of embarrassment:
We ought to tackle the Jewish question by admitting the right of States to make eugenic experiments by weeding out any strains that they think undesirable, but insisting that they do it as humanely as they can afford to, and not to shock civilisation by such misdemeanours as the expulsion and robbery of Einstein." [7]
In the wake of the Holocaust (during which the use of "humane" [8] Zyklon B was prominent), some of Shaw's defenders would either confuse or downplay his pre-WWII statements as satirical in nature or actually mockery of the eugenics movement. [9] [10]
"Shaw, concerned with finding an efficient way to purge the enemies of socialism, displayed a fine talent for prognostication in the BBC's highbrow periodical The Listener in 1933, when he urged chemists to devise a "humane" gas that would cause an "instantaneous and painless" death" - a civilized sort of gas, lethal of course but not cruel. It may be recalled that Nazi mass-murderer Adolf Eichmann, at his trial in Jerusalem in 1962, invoked in his defense the "humane" character of Zyklon B, the chemical used to exterminate the Jews in the Shoah.
The humanity of gas was one day to be Adolf Eichmann's defense in Jerusalem on Zyklon-B
Shaw...did not spare the eugenics movement his unpredictable mockery...[he] acted the outrageous buffoon at times.
I've been watching your work on the Trayvon Martin articles and I'm satisfied that you're alert to the problem of bias. You will be pleased to learn that regarding the Tea Party movement article, your suggestion regarding mention of Karl Denninger is being acted upon. [1] The article was an enormous mess when I started working on it a few months ago. Extremely partisan and tendentious editors were trying to WP:OWN it. It had become a collection of what I describe as "Daily Kos cruft," which is a collection of negative trivia about a conservative person or group that members of progressive online communities such as DKos find amusing, but are otherwise useless. A lot of that stuff has now been chainsawed out and it's looking better. Thanks for the suggestion and you are welcome to join us. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 14:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Also wanted to give some unsolicited advice re some of your edits/talk comments. We all certainly have our own beliefs as to what happened in this case, and the trial etc. In that I think we probably agree about more than we disagree. But some of your comments, while maybe true from a real world argument standpoint, are not well grounded in wikipedia policy. Fighting over the event/trial "truth" leads down a bad path for the wiki - keep the arguments based on policy, and what sources say about the event, and its much easier to hold off the barbarians. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Category:Most-active volcanoes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Pichpich ( talk) 02:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why you removed Maharishi Ayurveda from the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, or the templates from Acquittal which seemed appropriate (including "For other uses, see Not guilty." but I've restored them. And please use WP:Edit summaries. I want to AGF, but normally, especially for Acquittal, I'd just revert as vandalism. Dougweller ( talk) 06:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Concerning your edit on Historical revisionism (negationism): your paragraph regarding the Confederacy needs additional sources. I just saved it from deletion, but still, it needs those sources to be kept in the article. Moreover, someone put in a paragraph concerning black soldiers in the Confederate Army. Since I am not a great expert on this subject: could you have a look at it? Regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 14:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
With regards to this comment on talk:Historical revisionism (negationism). WP:BURDEN is quite clear on this issue you must supply inline citations to support any text that you restore. This is a Wikipedia Policy and deliberately breaching it now that you are aware that it exists may well lead to further administrative action. This part of policy was put in place about ten years ago to stop this sort of lame edit war and force the restoring party into providing inline ciations for the text to be re-added.
There is no need for the text to exist in the article for you to add inline citations to the text. To help you I have copied the disputed text from the article Historical revisionism (negationism) see User:Froglich/sandbox -- you will find a link to it at the top of the page between Talk and Preferences. This will allow you to fully cite the material and alter it in any way you think is appropriate before it is restored into the article. -- PBS ( talk) 14:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI, this is a notification that all articles that discuss climate change "broadly defined" are under discretionary sanctions per the arbitration decision at WP:ARBCC. Your insistance on pushing an extremely fringe POV and using the talk page as a forum for those views is not allowed. I have reverted your comments with the edit summary WP:NOTAFORUM. The next section below also demonstrates you are WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia, but to push a fringe POV. Stop it. You really do deserve a topic ban. The climate change area is a very sensitive one, and topic bans are handed out for such behavior. -- Brangifer
Hello, Froglich. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps ( talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
(Pursuant the bullynazi tactics in the preceding section...)
Don't everybody freak out all at once, now; ya hear? It's only the dead rising from their restless slumber to exact their horrible vengeance. (Watching you folks have your brains clawed out by ravenous ghouls in the years to come will be the epitome of schadenfreude.)-- Froglich ( talk) 09:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Froglich, Concerning the article on Marc Morano, I am looking for objective editors to help bring this article to a neutral state. I noticed that you participated a little and I would hope that you could join in on the talk page to help make this article more neutral and also rid the poor nature of the structure of the article, which is clearly not at the level of quality needed for a Bio and does not even come close to the examples of other Bio's on WP. I look forward to your help if you can. Thanks Jvaughters ( talk) 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Re: "A history of lying will always be relevant" - Are you claiming that Tyson has a history of lying? Viriditas ( talk) 21:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
("vomitous mass") |
---|
If you believe a summary of "Blarg" is an appropriate substitute for proper TP discussion then we have an issue here. Please self-revert and open a thread on the TP. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} . However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - 2/0 ( cont.) 15:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() Froglich ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Please peruse the edit warring policy; 3RR is a bright line, not a right. You may also be interested in WP:NOTTHEM. - 2/0 ( cont.) 21:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
<Rocky J. Squirrel> "And now, for something you'll really like!" </Rocky>
Seeing as how the EW complaint you filed has been closed, continued chest-thumping in that forum will eventually make people wonder if the goal is to make a WP:POINT which is a regrettably frequent form of disruption. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
|
Oh my dear god; what's this?!? Will the horrors never end?-- Froglich ( talk) 11:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
("Protect the Führer at all costs!") |
---|
Please note that I have made a comment at Talk:Dreams from My Real Father (see here) regarding the content dispute in which you and several other editors have been involved. If you believe other editors are repeatedly reverting your changes to the lead section of this article in defiance of the NPOV policy — even after the lengthy discussion at the NPOV noticeboard — you need to report them now at the Edit Warring noticeboard page ( WP:EWN). If you continue to wage a one-person-against-the-world edit war, I will report you at WP:EWN myself (assuming someone else doesn't take action first). Edit warring is not acceptable as a means of handling a dispute, even in a case where you are certain you are in the right and everyone else is blind to the facts. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() 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. Your last four edits at Dreams from My Real Father: Last comment by any editor at Talk:Dreams from My Real Father was 27 March 2014. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
-- That really is edit warring -- I posted here on 19 October 2016 with the standard WP:3RR warning when you had performed the same edit four times at Dreams from My Real Father. Your response of performing it a fifth time pushes the issue too far. The article talk still has had no comment since March 2014, and asserting your correctness via edit summary is not satisfactory. Your last five edits at Dreams from My Real Father:
Please self revert to avoid further escalation. Avoiding three reverts in 24 hours is not the only requirement. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
-- Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion --
-- October 2016 -- ![]() {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} .
Bishonen |
talk
14:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() Froglich ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: No proper warnings given; erroneous rationales; double-standards (e.g., more guilty and more uncivil editors go unpunished and are held to lower standards). What is going on is a collusive effort by several editors (and now an administrator) to prevent the introduction of Malik Obama's support of Joel Gilbert's thesis laid forth in Dreams From My Real Father, evidence of said support having at least three reliable sources, including a video interview. I can understand how the material might have BLP problems with the Frank Marshall Davis article (even though he's long dead and, arguably, his chief notability today involves the theory he is Barrack's father). The rationale for Malik's estrangement from his half-brother is an appropriate subject for his entry under Family of Barack Obama. Lastly, the idea that a BLP violation can be leveled for introducing Malik's support in the very article concerning the thesis itself is just absurd.-- Froglich ( talk) 21:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Decline reason: You were clearly edit warring to insert material that had been contested on BLP grounds. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
--Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction-- The following sanction now applies to you:
You have been sanctioned For persistent and aggressive promotion of conspiracy theories and unreliable sources with regard to Barack Obama, such as most recently on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Talk:Dreams from My Real Father, notably here. All Wikipedia pages are subject to WP:BLP. This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 09:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC) --Topic ban violation-- Froglich, if you read my topic ban note and WP:TBAN, as I advised you too, you will see that you're banned from all pages relating to Barack Obama. Of course that includes Talk:Dreams from My Real Father, which you have now edited. I would have thought that was obvious, since I explicitly cited your BLP violations on that page as one of the reasons you were topic banned. If you violate the ban again, you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC). |
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Oscar Lopez Rivera". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 28 May 2014.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
13:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Oscar Lopez Rivera, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
Sunray (
talk)
16:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
I suggested just changing to FALN a terrorist group. I am not disagreeing with you entirely, but in the talk section I cite the article of Robert Bella on the surveillance (fun reading, specially when they replaced all the powder in bullets, dynamite and fuses with burnt charcoal from coconuts) that they used to capture FALN members, and they just didn't seem to spend much time on ideology. They worked really hard to avoid being followed and did not socialize together much. There was not much cafe-style ideology to these guys, they were nuts-and-bolts bombers and robbers. Just a suggestion. Rococo1700 ( talk) 02:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Alejandrina Torres, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jmundo ( talk) 15:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I will try and explain why I don't think this matter should be included in the NW article.
The point at issue is the allegation that Kondratyev, Golyitsin, et. al., fabricated data on the instructions of the KGB. Tretyakov is the only source for this allegation. You say the source is good, but controversial claims require strong sources, and Tretykov is not good here. His claim has never been corroborated - repeated, yes, but repetition is not corroboration. It is significant that Laurence Badash, who has written an academic account of the politics of nuclear winter ( A Nuclear Winter's Tale, published by MIT) does not think Treyakov's claim worthy of inclusion. You mention the Mitrokhin archive, but as far as I know the fabrication of data on NW is not mentioned there. All that makes the claim WP:FRINGE.
There is also the inherent unlikelihood of the claim, which I have analysed in detail here: Kondratyev's paper, which Tretyakov says was unpublished, was in fact published by Colorado State University (Atmospheric Science Paper No.261, Fort Collins, 1976). See the link to the article here.
You say that the KGB would have overseen joint research projects; maybe, but Tretyakov does not say the research was overseen by the KGB, he says it was commissioned by the KGB, who ordered data to be fabricated. It is improbable that fabricated data could have been smuggled into a refereed publication in the West, and no-one other than Tretyakov has said it was.
You say that the fraud alleged by Tretyakov is in keeping with what we would expect from the Soviet Security Services. Sure, but that's speculation, not evidence.
As a compromise I left a summary of Tretyakov's claim on the NW page. I was disappointed to see that you did not accept it. May I suggest that you also offer a compromise? Pelarmian ( talk) 11:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
How to Read Donald Duck. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
FNAS (
talk)
20:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Saw the revert @ Eleanor_(automobile). Agreed; leaving out that bit is better to keep the article grammar in an encyclopedic form. Thanks! Cudak888 ( talk) 03:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Would you like to comment on this discussion regarding the issues at the Wagnerian rock page? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Thanks! Johnny338 ( talk) 02:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 ( talk) 03:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how my extension of the lede can be described as a political diatribe. It just summarises items from the main article, which is what a lede is for. Valetude ( talk) 08:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Froglich,
I've reverted your edits to Cowboy Bebop and MOS:AM. About MOS:AM, I don't think Gabriel Yuji was confused by the old wording, and think the simpler wording was better than what you changed it to. About Cowboy Bebop, the character section was just a cast list, so Gabriel Yuji was correct in saying that it went against MOS:AM. For Cowboy Bebop, since the character section is long and detailed, it has its own article at List of Cowboy Bebop characters. There shouldn't be a separate cast list in addition to that list article, and whether or not a cast list is titled "cast" or "characters" is irrelevant to that. If you want to make a character section in Cowboy Bebop that provides a short summary of the information at List of Cowboy Bebop characters, that would probably be fine. However, such a character section should be more than just a cast list, and should probably be written in prose rather than as a table. Calathan ( talk) 21:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a source that establishes that the images of storm surge damage you added at meteotsunami were associated with a meteotsunami and not an ordinary storm surge? The sources don't establish that. Geogene ( talk) 20:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I added a response on the meteotsunami talk page, please take a look, thanks! -- Tfocker4 ( talk) 00:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Tropical cyclone WikiProject! We are a group of Wikipedia editors who help to improve articles related to tropical cyclones on Wikipedia.
Looking for somewhere to start? Here are a few suggestions.
If you have any comments, suggestions, or would like to talk about the project in general, feel free to leave a message on the talk page.
Welcome to the tropical cyclone Wikiproject! If you need any help with anything related to hurricanes, I'm happy to assist. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought about "significant" as well. Pretty much every synonym for famous is a better option haha. I could see "remarkable" or "noteworthy" being good alternatives as well. All three options work for me, so I'll leave it up to you to decide! Auree ★ ★ 06:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I've reverted your addition to the article as the image you used is a replaceable fair-use image. As Lien is a living person, it is conceivable that an unlicensed image of her could be created. - SummerPhD v2.0 12:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
--- Talk:Edge (wrestler) --- Will you withdraw your move proposal? There is unanimous opposition. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
--- Single-purpose account accusation --- Please make sure you know what you're talking about before throwing out accusations like that. Have you examined the 20,000 edits I have made over the past 8 years before making such an accusation? Are you saying that I have a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines? While I will agree that many of my edits are related to one topic, I have been active all over the encyclopedia. In making this accusation, you are, in essence, stating that I am not here to build an encyclopedia but rather to push a viewpoint in violation of guidelines. In calling me a single purpose account, you're using a loaded term that is generally reserved for new accounts who edit outside of accepted norms, guidelines, and policies. I'm expecting you to retract your statement and issue an apology to me and to the other editors involved, and I trust that you will take care of this immediately. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Your red linking of the words "short-action" in .308 Winchester has given me pause for thought. Everybody and his brother knows that the Mauser style action was designed as a "long-action" bolt-action rifle, all our various Remingtons, Winchesters, Savages et cetera descended from that. Somewhere else in history somebody designed shorter cartridges for leverguns and then somebody else started cutting down Mauser style actions to fit them. Then along came Kalashnikov, Stoner and others and, poof, there suddenly appeared another whole set groups of varying of action lengths such as "AR-10 length", et cetera. To further muddy the water somebody else started making leverguns to fit pistol cartridges. All at various times and places while the makers of the old black powder metallic cartridges kept on working.
But nobody has written an article. I find that idea hilarious and want to thank you for bringing it up with your red link.
So to cut off my verbosity I'm going to throw this up on the wall and see what sticks. Feel free to contribute to User:Trilobitealive/Rifle action lengths until such time that it could be moved to article space. Trilobitealive ( talk) 22:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem here is that the term "action" itself is not being defined, and the article will be opaque to any reader who is not a firearms enthusiast.-- Froglich ( talk) 05:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)'"Rifle action lengths vary widely among makers of modern cartridge rifles..."
I see you've been editing this article. It has a list of books published but this company no longer publishes books. The book publishing has been taken over by another company, Red Wheel/Weiser/Conari. [13] [14] Doug Weller talk 16:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diablo sandwich 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/Diablo sandwich 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. Drmies ( talk) 18:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I reverted an edit. My content is by no means favourable regarding this pistol. The reader can conclude that the P30 has not met much commercial success, since only a few law enforcement agencies adopted the P30. The fact that the basic design is derived from the Heckler & Koch P2000 and Heckler & Koch USP Compact pistols is no compliment either. In the field of handguns it is rather common that a manufacturer derives a new handgun model from their previous model(s). Frankly technical advancement revolves around non spectacular suboptimisation in this field.-- Francis Flinch ( talk) 07:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the puffery from ConsumerAffairs. I've expanded the page to include information about the company that searchers would be interested in. Please be considerate of WP:NPOV in the future.
CerealKillerYum (
talk)
14:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I see that you reverted my edit to the hatnote of Dying Breed. When intentionally linking to a disambiguation page, the link should go through the (disambiguation) redirect per WP:INTDABLINK. This allows those of us at WP:DPL (and the bots that help us) know that the link is intentional. - Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 18:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I assume you are going to complete this, I hope? DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
You asked a question while reverting. To help youself answer that very question, google the specific phrasing. It pops up in a number of sites, one of them an official site for the series. We don't copy content without sourcing it. It is one of those few things that will rain fire down on your head from the proverbial heavens. Plus, as someone else noted, it speculative. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 06:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your moving content, especially in light of your edit summary [15], I see you've been formally notified about general sanctions in different areas [16], and recently [17]. Weston A. Price Foundation falls under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please refrain from such edits, and discuss the matter instead. Thank you. -- Ronz ( talk) 14:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
Thanks for your comment about this article. I was just thinking that the America newsreel footage was probably the first time an airplane (it's engines) was heard in a motion picture. Koplimek ( talk) 13:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on others again, as you did at
Talk:Suicide of Vince Foster, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Acroterion
(talk)
22:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Accusations of criminal conduct against other editors, rhetorical or not, are not acceptable. I am enforcing a topic ban on subjects concerning American politics, and will impose a topic ban once I fill out the paperwork. Acroterion (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are topic banned from all edits about, and all pages related to Vince Foster broadly construed, for three months. This may be extended if ignored, or if issues arise after the ban expires.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Acroterion (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Since you've posted a violation of your topic ban to this page in direct defiance of that ban, I've blocked you. Talkpages, like all Wikipedia pages, are subject to such bans. Acroterion (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi this is to inform you that West African Ebola virus epidemic which you edited will be submitted for WikiJournal of Medicine...The objective of this message is to invite the contributors to collaboratively submit the article for review through Wiki.J.Med, and if possible, to help in further betterment of the article in accordance to the suggestions of the reviewers. Wikipedia articles are collaboratively authored. So, it is very important to make the authors aware of such a process that the article is currently undergoing [19] thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Froglich. 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)
An article you recently created,
Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Atlanta, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
94rain
Talk
12:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Oliver Richters Men's Health, November 2018 Netherlands Ed.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
{{
Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}
below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason>
with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq ( talk) 01:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Oliver Richters Men's Health, November 2018 Netherlands Ed.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) 17:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Hodgetwins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hodgetwins. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terrence K. Williams 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/Terrence K. Williams 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. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennett White 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.
Please do not remove
speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with
FeedSpot. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the
talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you.
Padgriffin
Griffin's Nest
08:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Anno reparatae salutis humanae and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 27#Anno reparatae salutis humanae until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
MB
05:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Lehigh Defense logo.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) 18:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect
First woe and it has been listed
for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 9 § First woe until a consensus is reached.
Veverve (
talk)
14:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect
Second woe and it has been listed
for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 9 § Second woe until a consensus is reached.
Veverve (
talk)
14:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The article 6mm Optimum has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Round does not actually exist and is only a concept, does not appear to be a notable one either. No reliable, secondary sources.
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.
StreetcarEnjoyer
(talk)
21:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6mm Optimum 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.StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Simmons (commentator) 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.
|
Hi Froglich, It is my understanding that high explosives are not particularly more energetic than low explosives. They explode in a shorter time (they detonate rather than deflagrate), but they do not provide significantly more energy per unit mass. In any case I explained that concern on the talk page when I added the {{ dubious}} tag, so it would be good to engage the issue there rather than simply removing the tag. -- Trovatore ( talk) 00:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
(Shaw) was a very complicated person who still arouses great passion. The current article is a sincere attempt by a number of editors, over a considerable length of time, to present a balanced summary of the man, while not glossing over some of his more bizarre views and sayings. Totally changing the POV of an article like this may even be justified, but please raise any questions about the current (balanced?) view, and your desire to bring us into line with (say) Conservapedia, on the talk page for the article, rather than making wholesale changes - which are bound to be reverted, if not by me then by some "friends of Shaw" who are much less critical of him than me! -- Soundofmusicals ( talk) 23:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is the section various persons keep removing (other editors are requested to boldly revert such deletions):
(snip) At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he suggested the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve their problem. Shaw said:
We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment ...A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them. [1]
Shaw also called for the development of a "deadly" but "humane" gas for the purpose of killing, many at a time, those unfit to live. [2]
In a newsreel interview released on 5 March 1931, dealing with alternatives to the imprisonment of criminals, Shaw says
You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself. [3] [4]
Shaw would publicly expound desires for "humane" extermination into the late 1930s, [5] even as Germany was already well entrenched under the sway of Adolf Hitler (whose antisemitic autobiography Mein Kampf had been in print since 1923, and of which Shaw was still supportive of well into the War. [6]), with anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany having escalated steadily since 1933 (in accordance with the Nazi Party's " 25-Step Program" published in 1920), with German Jews stripped of citizenship in 1935.
In private correspondence to the Fabian socialist Beatrice Webb on February 6, 1938, Shaw was unequivocal in defense of government-orchestrated extermination of "undesirables", but concerned with portrayal and avoidance of embarrassment:
We ought to tackle the Jewish question by admitting the right of States to make eugenic experiments by weeding out any strains that they think undesirable, but insisting that they do it as humanely as they can afford to, and not to shock civilisation by such misdemeanours as the expulsion and robbery of Einstein." [7]
In the wake of the Holocaust (during which the use of "humane" [8] Zyklon B was prominent), some of Shaw's defenders would either confuse or downplay his pre-WWII statements as satirical in nature or actually mockery of the eugenics movement. [9] [10]
"Shaw, concerned with finding an efficient way to purge the enemies of socialism, displayed a fine talent for prognostication in the BBC's highbrow periodical The Listener in 1933, when he urged chemists to devise a "humane" gas that would cause an "instantaneous and painless" death" - a civilized sort of gas, lethal of course but not cruel. It may be recalled that Nazi mass-murderer Adolf Eichmann, at his trial in Jerusalem in 1962, invoked in his defense the "humane" character of Zyklon B, the chemical used to exterminate the Jews in the Shoah.
The humanity of gas was one day to be Adolf Eichmann's defense in Jerusalem on Zyklon-B
Shaw...did not spare the eugenics movement his unpredictable mockery...[he] acted the outrageous buffoon at times.
I've been watching your work on the Trayvon Martin articles and I'm satisfied that you're alert to the problem of bias. You will be pleased to learn that regarding the Tea Party movement article, your suggestion regarding mention of Karl Denninger is being acted upon. [1] The article was an enormous mess when I started working on it a few months ago. Extremely partisan and tendentious editors were trying to WP:OWN it. It had become a collection of what I describe as "Daily Kos cruft," which is a collection of negative trivia about a conservative person or group that members of progressive online communities such as DKos find amusing, but are otherwise useless. A lot of that stuff has now been chainsawed out and it's looking better. Thanks for the suggestion and you are welcome to join us. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 14:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Also wanted to give some unsolicited advice re some of your edits/talk comments. We all certainly have our own beliefs as to what happened in this case, and the trial etc. In that I think we probably agree about more than we disagree. But some of your comments, while maybe true from a real world argument standpoint, are not well grounded in wikipedia policy. Fighting over the event/trial "truth" leads down a bad path for the wiki - keep the arguments based on policy, and what sources say about the event, and its much easier to hold off the barbarians. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Category:Most-active volcanoes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Pichpich ( talk) 02:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why you removed Maharishi Ayurveda from the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, or the templates from Acquittal which seemed appropriate (including "For other uses, see Not guilty." but I've restored them. And please use WP:Edit summaries. I want to AGF, but normally, especially for Acquittal, I'd just revert as vandalism. Dougweller ( talk) 06:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Concerning your edit on Historical revisionism (negationism): your paragraph regarding the Confederacy needs additional sources. I just saved it from deletion, but still, it needs those sources to be kept in the article. Moreover, someone put in a paragraph concerning black soldiers in the Confederate Army. Since I am not a great expert on this subject: could you have a look at it? Regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 14:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
With regards to this comment on talk:Historical revisionism (negationism). WP:BURDEN is quite clear on this issue you must supply inline citations to support any text that you restore. This is a Wikipedia Policy and deliberately breaching it now that you are aware that it exists may well lead to further administrative action. This part of policy was put in place about ten years ago to stop this sort of lame edit war and force the restoring party into providing inline ciations for the text to be re-added.
There is no need for the text to exist in the article for you to add inline citations to the text. To help you I have copied the disputed text from the article Historical revisionism (negationism) see User:Froglich/sandbox -- you will find a link to it at the top of the page between Talk and Preferences. This will allow you to fully cite the material and alter it in any way you think is appropriate before it is restored into the article. -- PBS ( talk) 14:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI, this is a notification that all articles that discuss climate change "broadly defined" are under discretionary sanctions per the arbitration decision at WP:ARBCC. Your insistance on pushing an extremely fringe POV and using the talk page as a forum for those views is not allowed. I have reverted your comments with the edit summary WP:NOTAFORUM. The next section below also demonstrates you are WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia, but to push a fringe POV. Stop it. You really do deserve a topic ban. The climate change area is a very sensitive one, and topic bans are handed out for such behavior. -- Brangifer
Hello, Froglich. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps ( talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
(Pursuant the bullynazi tactics in the preceding section...)
Don't everybody freak out all at once, now; ya hear? It's only the dead rising from their restless slumber to exact their horrible vengeance. (Watching you folks have your brains clawed out by ravenous ghouls in the years to come will be the epitome of schadenfreude.)-- Froglich ( talk) 09:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Froglich, Concerning the article on Marc Morano, I am looking for objective editors to help bring this article to a neutral state. I noticed that you participated a little and I would hope that you could join in on the talk page to help make this article more neutral and also rid the poor nature of the structure of the article, which is clearly not at the level of quality needed for a Bio and does not even come close to the examples of other Bio's on WP. I look forward to your help if you can. Thanks Jvaughters ( talk) 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Re: "A history of lying will always be relevant" - Are you claiming that Tyson has a history of lying? Viriditas ( talk) 21:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
("vomitous mass") |
---|
If you believe a summary of "Blarg" is an appropriate substitute for proper TP discussion then we have an issue here. Please self-revert and open a thread on the TP. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} . However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - 2/0 ( cont.) 15:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() Froglich ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Please peruse the edit warring policy; 3RR is a bright line, not a right. You may also be interested in WP:NOTTHEM. - 2/0 ( cont.) 21:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
<Rocky J. Squirrel> "And now, for something you'll really like!" </Rocky>
Seeing as how the EW complaint you filed has been closed, continued chest-thumping in that forum will eventually make people wonder if the goal is to make a WP:POINT which is a regrettably frequent form of disruption. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 21:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
|
Oh my dear god; what's this?!? Will the horrors never end?-- Froglich ( talk) 11:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
("Protect the Führer at all costs!") |
---|
Please note that I have made a comment at Talk:Dreams from My Real Father (see here) regarding the content dispute in which you and several other editors have been involved. If you believe other editors are repeatedly reverting your changes to the lead section of this article in defiance of the NPOV policy — even after the lengthy discussion at the NPOV noticeboard — you need to report them now at the Edit Warring noticeboard page ( WP:EWN). If you continue to wage a one-person-against-the-world edit war, I will report you at WP:EWN myself (assuming someone else doesn't take action first). Edit warring is not acceptable as a means of handling a dispute, even in a case where you are certain you are in the right and everyone else is blind to the facts. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() 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. Your last four edits at Dreams from My Real Father: Last comment by any editor at Talk:Dreams from My Real Father was 27 March 2014. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
-- That really is edit warring -- I posted here on 19 October 2016 with the standard WP:3RR warning when you had performed the same edit four times at Dreams from My Real Father. Your response of performing it a fifth time pushes the issue too far. The article talk still has had no comment since March 2014, and asserting your correctness via edit summary is not satisfactory. Your last five edits at Dreams from My Real Father:
Please self revert to avoid further escalation. Avoiding three reverts in 24 hours is not the only requirement. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
-- Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion --
-- October 2016 -- ![]() {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} .
Bishonen |
talk
14:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() Froglich ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: No proper warnings given; erroneous rationales; double-standards (e.g., more guilty and more uncivil editors go unpunished and are held to lower standards). What is going on is a collusive effort by several editors (and now an administrator) to prevent the introduction of Malik Obama's support of Joel Gilbert's thesis laid forth in Dreams From My Real Father, evidence of said support having at least three reliable sources, including a video interview. I can understand how the material might have BLP problems with the Frank Marshall Davis article (even though he's long dead and, arguably, his chief notability today involves the theory he is Barrack's father). The rationale for Malik's estrangement from his half-brother is an appropriate subject for his entry under Family of Barack Obama. Lastly, the idea that a BLP violation can be leveled for introducing Malik's support in the very article concerning the thesis itself is just absurd.-- Froglich ( talk) 21:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Decline reason: You were clearly edit warring to insert material that had been contested on BLP grounds. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 19:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
--Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction-- The following sanction now applies to you:
You have been sanctioned For persistent and aggressive promotion of conspiracy theories and unreliable sources with regard to Barack Obama, such as most recently on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Talk:Dreams from My Real Father, notably here. All Wikipedia pages are subject to WP:BLP. This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 09:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC) --Topic ban violation-- Froglich, if you read my topic ban note and WP:TBAN, as I advised you too, you will see that you're banned from all pages relating to Barack Obama. Of course that includes Talk:Dreams from My Real Father, which you have now edited. I would have thought that was obvious, since I explicitly cited your BLP violations on that page as one of the reasons you were topic banned. If you violate the ban again, you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC). |
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Oscar Lopez Rivera". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 28 May 2014.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
13:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Oscar Lopez Rivera, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
Sunray (
talk)
16:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
I suggested just changing to FALN a terrorist group. I am not disagreeing with you entirely, but in the talk section I cite the article of Robert Bella on the surveillance (fun reading, specially when they replaced all the powder in bullets, dynamite and fuses with burnt charcoal from coconuts) that they used to capture FALN members, and they just didn't seem to spend much time on ideology. They worked really hard to avoid being followed and did not socialize together much. There was not much cafe-style ideology to these guys, they were nuts-and-bolts bombers and robbers. Just a suggestion. Rococo1700 ( talk) 02:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Alejandrina Torres, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jmundo ( talk) 15:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I will try and explain why I don't think this matter should be included in the NW article.
The point at issue is the allegation that Kondratyev, Golyitsin, et. al., fabricated data on the instructions of the KGB. Tretyakov is the only source for this allegation. You say the source is good, but controversial claims require strong sources, and Tretykov is not good here. His claim has never been corroborated - repeated, yes, but repetition is not corroboration. It is significant that Laurence Badash, who has written an academic account of the politics of nuclear winter ( A Nuclear Winter's Tale, published by MIT) does not think Treyakov's claim worthy of inclusion. You mention the Mitrokhin archive, but as far as I know the fabrication of data on NW is not mentioned there. All that makes the claim WP:FRINGE.
There is also the inherent unlikelihood of the claim, which I have analysed in detail here: Kondratyev's paper, which Tretyakov says was unpublished, was in fact published by Colorado State University (Atmospheric Science Paper No.261, Fort Collins, 1976). See the link to the article here.
You say that the KGB would have overseen joint research projects; maybe, but Tretyakov does not say the research was overseen by the KGB, he says it was commissioned by the KGB, who ordered data to be fabricated. It is improbable that fabricated data could have been smuggled into a refereed publication in the West, and no-one other than Tretyakov has said it was.
You say that the fraud alleged by Tretyakov is in keeping with what we would expect from the Soviet Security Services. Sure, but that's speculation, not evidence.
As a compromise I left a summary of Tretyakov's claim on the NW page. I was disappointed to see that you did not accept it. May I suggest that you also offer a compromise? Pelarmian ( talk) 11:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
How to Read Donald Duck. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
FNAS (
talk)
20:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Saw the revert @ Eleanor_(automobile). Agreed; leaving out that bit is better to keep the article grammar in an encyclopedic form. Thanks! Cudak888 ( talk) 03:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Would you like to comment on this discussion regarding the issues at the Wagnerian rock page? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Thanks! Johnny338 ( talk) 02:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 ( talk) 03:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how my extension of the lede can be described as a political diatribe. It just summarises items from the main article, which is what a lede is for. Valetude ( talk) 08:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Froglich,
I've reverted your edits to Cowboy Bebop and MOS:AM. About MOS:AM, I don't think Gabriel Yuji was confused by the old wording, and think the simpler wording was better than what you changed it to. About Cowboy Bebop, the character section was just a cast list, so Gabriel Yuji was correct in saying that it went against MOS:AM. For Cowboy Bebop, since the character section is long and detailed, it has its own article at List of Cowboy Bebop characters. There shouldn't be a separate cast list in addition to that list article, and whether or not a cast list is titled "cast" or "characters" is irrelevant to that. If you want to make a character section in Cowboy Bebop that provides a short summary of the information at List of Cowboy Bebop characters, that would probably be fine. However, such a character section should be more than just a cast list, and should probably be written in prose rather than as a table. Calathan ( talk) 21:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a source that establishes that the images of storm surge damage you added at meteotsunami were associated with a meteotsunami and not an ordinary storm surge? The sources don't establish that. Geogene ( talk) 20:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I added a response on the meteotsunami talk page, please take a look, thanks! -- Tfocker4 ( talk) 00:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Tropical cyclone WikiProject! We are a group of Wikipedia editors who help to improve articles related to tropical cyclones on Wikipedia.
Looking for somewhere to start? Here are a few suggestions.
If you have any comments, suggestions, or would like to talk about the project in general, feel free to leave a message on the talk page.
Welcome to the tropical cyclone Wikiproject! If you need any help with anything related to hurricanes, I'm happy to assist. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought about "significant" as well. Pretty much every synonym for famous is a better option haha. I could see "remarkable" or "noteworthy" being good alternatives as well. All three options work for me, so I'll leave it up to you to decide! Auree ★ ★ 06:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I've reverted your addition to the article as the image you used is a replaceable fair-use image. As Lien is a living person, it is conceivable that an unlicensed image of her could be created. - SummerPhD v2.0 12:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
--- Talk:Edge (wrestler) --- Will you withdraw your move proposal? There is unanimous opposition. -- George Ho ( talk) 08:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
--- Single-purpose account accusation --- Please make sure you know what you're talking about before throwing out accusations like that. Have you examined the 20,000 edits I have made over the past 8 years before making such an accusation? Are you saying that I have a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines? While I will agree that many of my edits are related to one topic, I have been active all over the encyclopedia. In making this accusation, you are, in essence, stating that I am not here to build an encyclopedia but rather to push a viewpoint in violation of guidelines. In calling me a single purpose account, you're using a loaded term that is generally reserved for new accounts who edit outside of accepted norms, guidelines, and policies. I'm expecting you to retract your statement and issue an apology to me and to the other editors involved, and I trust that you will take care of this immediately. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Your red linking of the words "short-action" in .308 Winchester has given me pause for thought. Everybody and his brother knows that the Mauser style action was designed as a "long-action" bolt-action rifle, all our various Remingtons, Winchesters, Savages et cetera descended from that. Somewhere else in history somebody designed shorter cartridges for leverguns and then somebody else started cutting down Mauser style actions to fit them. Then along came Kalashnikov, Stoner and others and, poof, there suddenly appeared another whole set groups of varying of action lengths such as "AR-10 length", et cetera. To further muddy the water somebody else started making leverguns to fit pistol cartridges. All at various times and places while the makers of the old black powder metallic cartridges kept on working.
But nobody has written an article. I find that idea hilarious and want to thank you for bringing it up with your red link.
So to cut off my verbosity I'm going to throw this up on the wall and see what sticks. Feel free to contribute to User:Trilobitealive/Rifle action lengths until such time that it could be moved to article space. Trilobitealive ( talk) 22:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem here is that the term "action" itself is not being defined, and the article will be opaque to any reader who is not a firearms enthusiast.-- Froglich ( talk) 05:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)'"Rifle action lengths vary widely among makers of modern cartridge rifles..."
I see you've been editing this article. It has a list of books published but this company no longer publishes books. The book publishing has been taken over by another company, Red Wheel/Weiser/Conari. [13] [14] Doug Weller talk 16:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diablo sandwich 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/Diablo sandwich 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. Drmies ( talk) 18:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I reverted an edit. My content is by no means favourable regarding this pistol. The reader can conclude that the P30 has not met much commercial success, since only a few law enforcement agencies adopted the P30. The fact that the basic design is derived from the Heckler & Koch P2000 and Heckler & Koch USP Compact pistols is no compliment either. In the field of handguns it is rather common that a manufacturer derives a new handgun model from their previous model(s). Frankly technical advancement revolves around non spectacular suboptimisation in this field.-- Francis Flinch ( talk) 07:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the puffery from ConsumerAffairs. I've expanded the page to include information about the company that searchers would be interested in. Please be considerate of WP:NPOV in the future.
CerealKillerYum (
talk)
14:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I see that you reverted my edit to the hatnote of Dying Breed. When intentionally linking to a disambiguation page, the link should go through the (disambiguation) redirect per WP:INTDABLINK. This allows those of us at WP:DPL (and the bots that help us) know that the link is intentional. - Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 18:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I assume you are going to complete this, I hope? DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
You asked a question while reverting. To help youself answer that very question, google the specific phrasing. It pops up in a number of sites, one of them an official site for the series. We don't copy content without sourcing it. It is one of those few things that will rain fire down on your head from the proverbial heavens. Plus, as someone else noted, it speculative. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 06:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your moving content, especially in light of your edit summary [15], I see you've been formally notified about general sanctions in different areas [16], and recently [17]. Weston A. Price Foundation falls under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please refrain from such edits, and discuss the matter instead. Thank you. -- Ronz ( talk) 14:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
Thanks for your comment about this article. I was just thinking that the America newsreel footage was probably the first time an airplane (it's engines) was heard in a motion picture. Koplimek ( talk) 13:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on others again, as you did at
Talk:Suicide of Vince Foster, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Acroterion
(talk)
22:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Accusations of criminal conduct against other editors, rhetorical or not, are not acceptable. I am enforcing a topic ban on subjects concerning American politics, and will impose a topic ban once I fill out the paperwork. Acroterion (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are topic banned from all edits about, and all pages related to Vince Foster broadly construed, for three months. This may be extended if ignored, or if issues arise after the ban expires.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Acroterion (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Since you've posted a violation of your topic ban to this page in direct defiance of that ban, I've blocked you. Talkpages, like all Wikipedia pages, are subject to such bans. Acroterion (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi this is to inform you that West African Ebola virus epidemic which you edited will be submitted for WikiJournal of Medicine...The objective of this message is to invite the contributors to collaboratively submit the article for review through Wiki.J.Med, and if possible, to help in further betterment of the article in accordance to the suggestions of the reviewers. Wikipedia articles are collaboratively authored. So, it is very important to make the authors aware of such a process that the article is currently undergoing [19] thanks-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 13:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Froglich. 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)
An article you recently created,
Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Atlanta, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
94rain
Talk
12:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Oliver Richters Men's Health, November 2018 Netherlands Ed.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
{{
Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}
below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason>
with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq ( talk) 01:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Oliver Richters Men's Health, November 2018 Netherlands Ed.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) 17:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Hodgetwins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hodgetwins. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terrence K. Williams 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/Terrence K. Williams 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. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennett White 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.
Please do not remove
speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with
FeedSpot. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the
talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you.
Padgriffin
Griffin's Nest
08:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Anno reparatae salutis humanae and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 27#Anno reparatae salutis humanae until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
MB
05:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Lehigh Defense logo.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) 18:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect
First woe and it has been listed
for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 9 § First woe until a consensus is reached.
Veverve (
talk)
14:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect
Second woe and it has been listed
for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 9 § Second woe until a consensus is reached.
Veverve (
talk)
14:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The article 6mm Optimum has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Round does not actually exist and is only a concept, does not appear to be a notable one either. No reliable, secondary sources.
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.
StreetcarEnjoyer
(talk)
21:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6mm Optimum 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.StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Simmons (commentator) 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.