|
|||||||||||||||
Hey Grundle. I saw this article noted on another editor's page and thought it was interesting [1]. I hope all is well with you. I mentioned you once on my talk page in a discussion about prairie dogs and whether they can recognize each other by their teeth or, as I speculated, it's a breath thing. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if there are enough sources for this but if you can find some I think you should create an article on it. Meanwhile I rearranged the sections a bit since documentaries shouldn't be in a "popular culture" section. If you do so I think there should be two subsections. "Documentaries" and "In popular culture". The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 04:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
There we go. Another needed article created! BTW, this part of the judges reasoning, "These weren't the kind of men you send to jail.", really pissed me off (excuse my French). The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
One good turn deserves another [4]. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry bro, but I think you're crossing the topic ban line with this one. WP:AN#Grundle2600, topic ban inquiry. Tarc ( talk) 02:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
MastCell
Talk 05:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)She said that during my block, I still get to collect my full salary. Whoo hoo! Grundle2600 ( talk) 09:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't followed the specifics of his case in great detail, but one year would be way too long. Come on, admins, you know he makes great contributions to the encyclopedia. Having him gone for a year is way beyond excessive. Grundle2600 ( talk) 10:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that certain editors seem to be spending all their of time at wikipedia either filing ANI complaints and/or erasing content from articles. Perhaps if these people tried spending some time actually adding content to articles, they wouldn't be so quick to clamp down on people who make a few mistakes every now and then, but are otherwise excellent contributors to the encyclopedia. If a person who contributes lots of legitimate content to the encyclopedia occasionally messes up, there should be some leeway for that. Grundle2600 ( talk) 11:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Before today's block, which has left me with plenty of time to watch weekday TV, I hadn't watched any weekday TV since I was a kid in the 1970s, when I watched reruns of Get Smart, Dick Van Dyke, Underdog, the Three Stooges, and Looney Tunes. But now today, all that's on - on every single channel - is reruns on Law & Order! You'd think that with 300 channels of cable today, compared to only 4 channels of non-cable when I was a kid, there'd be a bigger selection today than back then. But no - they had to put the same show on every single channel! What the heck is up with that? Grundle2600 ( talk) 14:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
According to today's newspaper, there is updated information regarding the political status of Michelle Obama's arms. The National Rifle Association scorecard has given a rating of 0% to Michelle's left arm, and a rating of 100% to her right arm. The Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence scorecard has given the exact reverse ratings, with a score of 100% for her left arm, and 0% for her right arm. All of these ratings, from both organizations, are based on a single photograph - which was taken when Michelle was eight years old - which shows her using her right arm to shoot a squirt gun. These poll results are having a huge effect on the ability of Michelle's arms to get elected to Congress - it's been rumored that one of her arms is considering dropping out of the next election - although different sources are inconsistent about whether it's her left or right arm. Grundle2600 ( talk) 14:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Over at this other website, every week I choose an animal and start a discussion about it by posting its wikipedia article. I've been doing this for about three years now, and you can see my list of all the animals that I have chosen so far, along with links to all the discussions, here. Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
No fair googling or asking someone! Grundle2600 ( talk) 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
<--I can't believe I'm being outsmarted by a bunch of conservatives. I'm going back to school. Drmies ( talk) 05:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
link Grundle2600 ( talk) 02:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight is completely unfair. The encyclopedia will suffer greatly because of this. Grundle2600 ( talk) 04:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Dan Brown (YouTube).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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to somewhere on your talk page.Thank you. DASHBot ( talk) 08:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi bot! You can go ahead and delete the image. Grundle2600 ( talk) 12:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
"DYN"? :) Reminds me of what some say the "N" on the Cornhuskers helmet stands for. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
So you work for Keyser Söze, eh? It occurs to me that if you work for Keyser Söze, that probably opens a lot of doors. However, performance review time could be a little tense. With Keyser Söze, there's no sliding scale. It's strictly pass/fail. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Donna Simpson (world's heaviest woman to give birth), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Simpson (world's heaviest woman to give birth). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Them From Space 01:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
-- Cirt ( talk) 06:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Grundle2600 ( talk) 06:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
You might want to consider http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Inimicus_filamentosus as an animal of the day. PhGustaf ( talk) 02:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Congrats on getting this article in the main page, albeit April Fool's Day. Enjoy! Grsz 11 13:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. HkCaGu ( talk) 19:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I have reported your most recent disruption of the encyclopedia to ANI. You can comment at [ [5]]. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. I saw someone called out on an extremely silly "joke" then trying to turn the discussion around to try and get a topic ban lifted, demonstrating IMO the height of foolishness. I tend to speak very forthrightly both online and off. But I see from your comment that you took offence where it wasn't really intended so I apologise for using that acronym. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
How did I miss all this? I thought the part about tipping over and falling into the ocean was funny, but I don't really want to go on record as encouraging it. Best, - Wikidemon ( talk) 23:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As you have reneged on your promise that lead to your being conditionally unblocked ("please abide by this undertaking or I, or someone else will reimpose"), I have re-instated the indefinite block. – xeno talk 21:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
For anyone who is curious, here is a permanent link to the discussion of my indefinite ban. Note that it was me who started the discussion, with a request to modify my topic ban. That's an example of chaos theory - I was hoping for one outcome, and I ended up getting an entirely different outcome that I never would have anticipated. Kind of ironic, I suppose.
I have enjoyed my time here.
I see over at the ANI discussion, some people are claiming that I chose my user name with something other than the video game reference in mind. That is not true. I first played that game when I was eleven years old, and it has always been my favorite. To anyone who thinks my interest in choosing my username comes from anything other than my love of the video game, please see the userboxes on my userpage, as well as the list of articles that I started. Does that look like the userpage of a person who is interested in crude, vulgar language, or, does it look like the userpage of a child trapped in an adult's body?
I do admit that several months ago, as a joke to make my wikistalkers laugh, I did several consecutive edits to a bunch of articles about various bodily functions and such, but other than that, I do not think I've ever done anything here that wasn't G-rated. Perhaps I have made a few other such edits, but out of the many thousands of edits that I have made, it's statistically insignificant. My interests are in politics, science, animals, technology, pop culture, and food. A few crude jokes every now and then, sure, but never as a username that everyone sees every day.
And as one editor suggested, for those of you who think I chose my username to be crude and vulgar, how you do explain the 2600 part?
Well, "indef" is not for any fixed period of time. It could be forever, or it could be for two years, or it could be be for six months. We shall see.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 17:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Whoa! Bigtimepeace, your claim that I "took over" Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama is false. I never prevented anyone else from posting there. As further proof that I never "took over" the talk page, since I was topic banned from political talk pages more than five months ago, there have been almost no posts at all at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. Surely, if it really had been my fault that other people weren't posting there, then once I was banned from the talk page, more people would have posted there. But actually, since I was banned from the talk page, the number of posts on that talk page has approached zero. Hardly anything at all has been said there. Therefore, your claim that I "took over" the talk page is false.
Your claim that it's because of me that "article work largely ground to a halt" is also false. I never, ever erased any well sourced material that anyone added to the page. I never, ever prevented anyone from adding anything to the article. Therefore, I never caused "article work largely ground to a halt." Furthermore, during the more than five months since I have been banned from the article, hardly any new info has been added to the article. How do you explain that?
How do you explain that during the more than five months that I have been banned, hardly any new discussion has taken place at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, and hardly any new info has been added to Presidency of Barack Obama? How can you blame me for this, when I haven't edited either of those pages in over five months? How can it possibly be my fault that hardly any changes have been made to that article or talk page in over five months, when I haven't made any edits there at all?
How can you blame me for other people's lack of editing an article and talk page, when I have not edited them for over five months?
What exactly have I done during the past five months to prevent other editors from editing that article and talk page?
And even when I was allowed to edit those things, how did I ever prevent anyone else from adding content? I didn't. I never, ever erased any well sourced info that anyone added. And I never, ever erased anything from the talk page. So you accusations against me are false.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone at ANI suggested that I edit Conservapedia.
That's a horrible suggestion, because:
1) Conservapedia is only about presenting the conservative point of view. I prefer a wiki that presents all points of view.
2) I am a very strong believer in biological evolution, I know the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, and I think Creationism is fiction.
3) I'm a libertarian, not a conservative.
4) The info that I added about medical marijuana and benefits for partners of gay federal employees are not things that conservapedia supports.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
But those very same people refuse to teach me the things that I wanted to learn about. That's very hypocritical of them.
I want to learn.
I very much want to learn.
But no one is willing to teach me the things that I want to learn.
When I asked important questions about wikipedia policy, instead of answering my questions and helping me learn, they banned me.
Therefore, for them to say "Grundle doesn't get it - he'll never learn" is completely hypocritical on their part.
I love to learn. I want to learn. I wish that someone was willing to teach me, and answer my questions.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The easiest way to get out of these sanction is to grovel. Grovel and repent. Not saying I approve only that is usually what's required to et a unblock here. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 23:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship looks like something that I could really get into. Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Grundle2600 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
On December 10, 2009, I made this edit to a biography of a living person.
Afterward, people explained to me that by making that edit, I was in violation of Wikipedia:Synth. That means that I took two separate facts, from two separate sources, and I combined them into one sentence, to try to prove a point which was not stated in either separate source. By doing this, I was violating Wikipedia:Synth.
On December 11, 2009, I changed the article so that it no longer violated Wikipedia:Synth. Specifically, instead of joining the two facts (from two separate sources) together in the same sentence, I separated the two facts, and had three entire paragraphs in between those two facts. That proved that I understood the policy of Wikipedia:Synth. That proved that I had learned my lesson.
On December 13, 2009, despite that it had been two days since I had fixed the problem that I had created, and despite the fact that it had been two days since I had already learned my lesson, User:Rd232 blocked me.
Wikipedia:Blocking policy states, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment."
Given that I had proven on December 11, 2009, that I had already learned my lesson, and given that blocks are meant as a teaching tool and not as a punishment, it doesn't follow wikipedia policy that User:Rd232 blocked me on December 13, 2009, two days after I already proven that I had learned my lesson.
Therefore, the block was in violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy, which states, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." I had already learned my lesson before I was blocked. And blocks are about learning, not punishment. Therefore, the block was never justified in the first place.
On December 18, 2009, as a condition for being unblocked, I agreed to the following condition: "Grundle is to refrain from posting his list of seven questions or referring to them anywhere on Wikipedia." My unblock request was granted.
On April 5, 2010, I broke that promise, and my block was reinstated.
I broke my promise, and the block being lifted had been based on me making and keeping that promise, so the block was reinstated.
However, after thinking about this some more, I now consider that condition for lifting my block to have been unreasonable.
My seven questions were all questions about wikipedia policy. I am a curious person, and I like to know and understand the wikipedia rules, so that I may follow the wikipedia rules.
There is no wikipedia policy that says we are not allowed to ask questions about wikipedia policy.
Therefore, the requirement for me to avoid asking those seven questions about wikipedia policy as a condition for being unblocked was unreasonable.
I am not sorry that I asked those questions about wikipedia policy again. Instead, I am sorry that I promised not to ask them again. There is nothing wrong with an editor asking questions about wikipedia policy.
So yes, I broke the promise on which my being unblocked was conditional. However, that promise had nothing to do with my violation of Wikipedia:Synth, which is why I was blocked in the first place.
I will never violate Wikipedia:Synth again.
But I should be allowed to ask questions about wikipedia policy.
Given that blocks are about learning, and given that I have learned about the Wikipedia:Synth policy, my block should be lifted.
And no one should require that I stop asking questions about wikipedia policy as a condition for my block to be lifted.
I am asking for my block to be lifted for the following reasons:
1) Blocks are about learning, not punishment. I learned that Wikipedia:Synth is against wikipedia policy.
2) When I was blocked on December 13, 2009, it had already been two days since I had proven that I had learned my lesson about Wikipedia:Synth. Since blocks are about learning and not punishment, the block was never justified in the first place.
3) It was unreasonable for them to require, as a condition for my block being lifted, a condition which had nothing to do with the block in the first place. Since I was blocked for violating Wikipedia:Synth, it was unreasonable for them to require me to agree not to ask questions about wikipedia policy as a condition for my block being lifted.
4) No editor should ever be told not to ask questions about wikipedia policy.
5) There is no wikipedia policy that says that editors are not allowed to ask questions about wikipedia policy.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 00:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
While you assert – correctly or not – that "blocks are about learning, not punishment", your continued insistence on raising and re-raising ad nauseam issues which you have been told are settled suggests that you have not learned from your past actions — nor from your previous blocks. The ultimate purpose of blocks is to protect the project from harm; and editors who persist in wasting the time of their colleagues are damaging to our work here. That you consider it appropriate to argue in this unblock request that you should not only be unblocked, but also be allowed to persist in the disruptive conduct which led to the original restrictions on your editing, is a compelling argument that you should remain blocked indefinitely. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:52, 8 April 2010 (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.
You added much. You are way too smart for this group, something that saddens me.-- 75.4.16.15 ( talk) 03:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Grundle2600, I'm sorry to tell you that you have been indefinitely banned by consensus of the Wikipedia community. Please see Wikipedia:Banning policy for further information. Given the discussion that led to the ban, I strongly recommend waiting at least one year before appealing it--and even then, I'm not sure an appeal would get you anywhere. I will not disable use of your talk page unless you give me a reason to, so please don't give me that reason.-- Chaser ( talk) 03:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tomy shooting gallery.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 00:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tomy obstacle course.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw this thread you started at freerepublic - that's too bad that wikipedia banned you http://www.google.com/#q=freerepublic+grundle+%22Wikipedia+banned+me+for+asking+why+Presidency+of+Barack+Obama+couldn%27t+contain+criticism.%22&num=30&hl=en&safe=off&filter=0&fp=bcdf8cbbf06dc4f
If it's any consolation, I see that someone has added the info about Obama favoring offshore drilling to "Presidency of Barack Obama" as well as a sentence about Van Jones. Since this info is now allowed in the article, perhaps they should unban you.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps the reason they banned you was because of your obsessional behavior, and not because of the content of your suggested edits. Perhaps if you had gone about proposing the same edits, but in a slower, more limited way, you wouldn't have been banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.47.41 ( talk) 17:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Grundle2600 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am asking that my block be changed from indefinite to three months, and that my ban be lifted entirely. I promise not to ask those seven questions anymore. I realize that I broke that promise the last time I made it, which is why I think I deserve a block of three months. I also think that anything longer than three months is excessive and inhumane. Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not a reviewable block. It's a community ban. It gets appealed to the community or the Arbitration Committee. If you want to appeal your ban to the community, then ask that. I strongly advise against an appeal at this time, but I will post it to ANI for you all the same. Chaser ( talk) 21:31, 11 April 2010 (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.
April 17, 2010
To: Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
I, User:Grundle2600, acknowledge to having conducted the following activities at wikipedia, all of which are against the rules:
In doing these things, I have jeopardized the project, and I have also wasted the time of other editors.
At the same time, it is also true that my contributions to non-political articles have been outstanding. I have created a huge number of such articles, many of which were featured in the "in the news" section of the main page. I have also improved many other previously existing non-political articles. The very long list of articles that I created can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Grundle2600&oldid=353969441#Articles_that_I_started
I acknowledge that the good things that I have done here are not an excuse or justification for the bad things.
In order to help improve the encyclopedia, I wish to create a set of circumstances which will allow me to continue doing good things to improve the encyclopedia, while simultaneously providing me with strong incentives to avoid causing harm to the encyclopedia.
I propose that my community ban be lifted.
I propose that I be automatically blocked for 30 days if I do any of the following. There is no need to have a long, drawn out ANI discussion for such a block - any admin may carry out the block, and any non-admin may suggest such a block at ANI or on the talk page of any admin. These are the actions that, if carried out my be, will result in an automatic 30 day block for me:
If I do any of these things, I am to be automatically blocked for 30 days, and there is no need for a long, drawn out ANI discussion.
This proposal, if adopted, would allow me to continue doing the good things that I have done here for the past three years, while simultaneously providing me with a substantial disincentive for doing the bad things which I have done in the past.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Sincerely,
Grundle2600
Grundle2600 ( talk) 22:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Air Force One photo op incident, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force One photo op incident. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Mangroomer, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangroomer. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SilkTork * YES! 00:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Gerald Walpin, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 01:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Barbara Bullock, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bullock until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 22:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Reann Ballslee, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reann Ballslee until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 23:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Mark Addison, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Addison until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 18:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Lance Thomas (watch merchant) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lance Thomas (watch merchant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 14:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Twanda Carlisle is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twanda Carlisle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 14:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tramp Stamp Barbie.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The article HealthAccessRI is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HealthAccessRI until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 12:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Extra Mile Education Foundation is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extra Mile Education Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 12:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Mismatching is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mismatching until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 12:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Dear IRS is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear IRS until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 12:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The article YaVaughnie Wilkins has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Ladyof
Shalott 23:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article B&W mPower 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/B&W mPower until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Payppp ( talk) 23:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Please do not swear on talk pages as this is considered offensive. Thank you Scottdelaney1067 ( talk) 01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The article Flippopotamus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Sven Manguard
Wha? 03:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 03:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hall and Oates Voices alternative cover art.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 19:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Whisson Windmill 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/Whisson Windmill 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. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 22:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The article Markus (prostitute) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 00:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Markus (prostitute) 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/Markus (prostitute) 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Safari cards 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/Safari cards 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. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Jennifer Daugherty 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/Murder of Jennifer Daugherty (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on 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. Transcendence ( talk) 19:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you still watch this page at all? Tarc ( talk) 02:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Dropdeadfred.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The article PlayPower has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. –
czar 00:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Team Sarah. Since you had some involvement with the Team Sarah redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wiihabilitation. Since you had some involvement with the Wiihabilitation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst ✈ 15:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Grundle2600,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Education crisis should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education crisis .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks, Mduvekot ( talk) 16:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Good Clean Fun (Bonnie Hayes album cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The article LEXID has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable product.
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. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 12:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect H.R. 1503. Since you had some involvement with the H.R. 1503 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Power~enwiki ( talk) 04:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect We demand more asbestos!. Since you had some involvement with the We demand more asbestos! redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thegreatluigi ( talk) 13:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Doogie Howser GOP. Since you had some involvement with the Doogie Howser GOP redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 05:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tomy obstacle course.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) 02:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:KAOS logo from Get Smart.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The article Virtual cocoon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Article based on a 2009 wave of promotional churnalism, about a forthcoming product that doesn't appear to have come to fruition. No evidence of notability. WP:BEFORE shows the churnalism.
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.
David Gerard (
talk) 09:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Compact 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/The Compact (2nd nomination) 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. Boleyn ( talk) 08:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Empowerment Experiment 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/Empowerment Experiment 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. Daask ( talk) 23:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Empowerment Experiment 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/Empowerment Experiment 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. Daask ( talk) 23:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vintage Estate Wine and Beer 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.
Mccapra ( talk) 08:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Raiders of the Phantom Menace. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Raiders of the Phantom Menace until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 06:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indiana Jones and the Phantom Menace. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Indiana Jones and the Phantom Menace until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 06:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The article How to Survive (TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No indication of notability; fails WP:GNG.
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.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 21:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sabrina76.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) 03:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feral rhesus macaque 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.
Mooonswimmer 21:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The article Eric Schansberg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Subject lacks significant coverage in sources independent of the subject and article primarily relys on sources authored by the article subject.
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.
Tdl1060 (
talk) 08:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The article Isabelle Redford has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Lacks notability, sourced coverage is from one minor story from over a decade ago. No additional coverage seems to exist since. Additional data (unsourced) and self-promotion seems to have been added more recently by the subject themselves.
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.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Underfunded public school system and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 13#Underfunded public school system until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Partofthemachine ( talk) 22:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Drop Dead Fred (2011 film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Drop Dead Fred (2011 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mike Allen 03:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The article Is It Possible? has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2020
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.
DonaldD23
talk to me 11:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rielle Hunter 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.
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The article Rise of the Video Game has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Does not appear to pass WP:NTV or WP:GNG, tagged for notability since 2016
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.
DonaldD23
talk to me 14:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The article Some Assembly Required (2007 TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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.
DonaldD23
talk to me 13:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Some Assembly Required (2007 TV series) 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.DonaldD23 talk to me 13:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The file File:NASA global temperature data 1880-2009.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, issues with file extension (.gif but actually .png), unclear what green bars refer to (see talk)
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 files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. --
TheImaCow (
talk) 14:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
|
|||||||||||||||
Hey Grundle. I saw this article noted on another editor's page and thought it was interesting [1]. I hope all is well with you. I mentioned you once on my talk page in a discussion about prairie dogs and whether they can recognize each other by their teeth or, as I speculated, it's a breath thing. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if there are enough sources for this but if you can find some I think you should create an article on it. Meanwhile I rearranged the sections a bit since documentaries shouldn't be in a "popular culture" section. If you do so I think there should be two subsections. "Documentaries" and "In popular culture". The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 04:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
There we go. Another needed article created! BTW, this part of the judges reasoning, "These weren't the kind of men you send to jail.", really pissed me off (excuse my French). The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
One good turn deserves another [4]. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry bro, but I think you're crossing the topic ban line with this one. WP:AN#Grundle2600, topic ban inquiry. Tarc ( talk) 02:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
MastCell
Talk 05:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)She said that during my block, I still get to collect my full salary. Whoo hoo! Grundle2600 ( talk) 09:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't followed the specifics of his case in great detail, but one year would be way too long. Come on, admins, you know he makes great contributions to the encyclopedia. Having him gone for a year is way beyond excessive. Grundle2600 ( talk) 10:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that certain editors seem to be spending all their of time at wikipedia either filing ANI complaints and/or erasing content from articles. Perhaps if these people tried spending some time actually adding content to articles, they wouldn't be so quick to clamp down on people who make a few mistakes every now and then, but are otherwise excellent contributors to the encyclopedia. If a person who contributes lots of legitimate content to the encyclopedia occasionally messes up, there should be some leeway for that. Grundle2600 ( talk) 11:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Before today's block, which has left me with plenty of time to watch weekday TV, I hadn't watched any weekday TV since I was a kid in the 1970s, when I watched reruns of Get Smart, Dick Van Dyke, Underdog, the Three Stooges, and Looney Tunes. But now today, all that's on - on every single channel - is reruns on Law & Order! You'd think that with 300 channels of cable today, compared to only 4 channels of non-cable when I was a kid, there'd be a bigger selection today than back then. But no - they had to put the same show on every single channel! What the heck is up with that? Grundle2600 ( talk) 14:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
According to today's newspaper, there is updated information regarding the political status of Michelle Obama's arms. The National Rifle Association scorecard has given a rating of 0% to Michelle's left arm, and a rating of 100% to her right arm. The Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence scorecard has given the exact reverse ratings, with a score of 100% for her left arm, and 0% for her right arm. All of these ratings, from both organizations, are based on a single photograph - which was taken when Michelle was eight years old - which shows her using her right arm to shoot a squirt gun. These poll results are having a huge effect on the ability of Michelle's arms to get elected to Congress - it's been rumored that one of her arms is considering dropping out of the next election - although different sources are inconsistent about whether it's her left or right arm. Grundle2600 ( talk) 14:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Over at this other website, every week I choose an animal and start a discussion about it by posting its wikipedia article. I've been doing this for about three years now, and you can see my list of all the animals that I have chosen so far, along with links to all the discussions, here. Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
No fair googling or asking someone! Grundle2600 ( talk) 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
<--I can't believe I'm being outsmarted by a bunch of conservatives. I'm going back to school. Drmies ( talk) 05:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
link Grundle2600 ( talk) 02:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The result of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight is completely unfair. The encyclopedia will suffer greatly because of this. Grundle2600 ( talk) 04:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Dan Brown (YouTube).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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to somewhere on your talk page.Thank you. DASHBot ( talk) 08:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi bot! You can go ahead and delete the image. Grundle2600 ( talk) 12:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
"DYN"? :) Reminds me of what some say the "N" on the Cornhuskers helmet stands for. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
So you work for Keyser Söze, eh? It occurs to me that if you work for Keyser Söze, that probably opens a lot of doors. However, performance review time could be a little tense. With Keyser Söze, there's no sliding scale. It's strictly pass/fail. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Donna Simpson (world's heaviest woman to give birth), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Simpson (world's heaviest woman to give birth). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Them From Space 01:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
-- Cirt ( talk) 06:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Grundle2600 ( talk) 06:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
You might want to consider http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Inimicus_filamentosus as an animal of the day. PhGustaf ( talk) 02:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Congrats on getting this article in the main page, albeit April Fool's Day. Enjoy! Grsz 11 13:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. HkCaGu ( talk) 19:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I have reported your most recent disruption of the encyclopedia to ANI. You can comment at [ [5]]. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. I saw someone called out on an extremely silly "joke" then trying to turn the discussion around to try and get a topic ban lifted, demonstrating IMO the height of foolishness. I tend to speak very forthrightly both online and off. But I see from your comment that you took offence where it wasn't really intended so I apologise for using that acronym. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
How did I miss all this? I thought the part about tipping over and falling into the ocean was funny, but I don't really want to go on record as encouraging it. Best, - Wikidemon ( talk) 23:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As you have reneged on your promise that lead to your being conditionally unblocked ("please abide by this undertaking or I, or someone else will reimpose"), I have re-instated the indefinite block. – xeno talk 21:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
For anyone who is curious, here is a permanent link to the discussion of my indefinite ban. Note that it was me who started the discussion, with a request to modify my topic ban. That's an example of chaos theory - I was hoping for one outcome, and I ended up getting an entirely different outcome that I never would have anticipated. Kind of ironic, I suppose.
I have enjoyed my time here.
I see over at the ANI discussion, some people are claiming that I chose my user name with something other than the video game reference in mind. That is not true. I first played that game when I was eleven years old, and it has always been my favorite. To anyone who thinks my interest in choosing my username comes from anything other than my love of the video game, please see the userboxes on my userpage, as well as the list of articles that I started. Does that look like the userpage of a person who is interested in crude, vulgar language, or, does it look like the userpage of a child trapped in an adult's body?
I do admit that several months ago, as a joke to make my wikistalkers laugh, I did several consecutive edits to a bunch of articles about various bodily functions and such, but other than that, I do not think I've ever done anything here that wasn't G-rated. Perhaps I have made a few other such edits, but out of the many thousands of edits that I have made, it's statistically insignificant. My interests are in politics, science, animals, technology, pop culture, and food. A few crude jokes every now and then, sure, but never as a username that everyone sees every day.
And as one editor suggested, for those of you who think I chose my username to be crude and vulgar, how you do explain the 2600 part?
Well, "indef" is not for any fixed period of time. It could be forever, or it could be for two years, or it could be be for six months. We shall see.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 17:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Whoa! Bigtimepeace, your claim that I "took over" Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama is false. I never prevented anyone else from posting there. As further proof that I never "took over" the talk page, since I was topic banned from political talk pages more than five months ago, there have been almost no posts at all at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. Surely, if it really had been my fault that other people weren't posting there, then once I was banned from the talk page, more people would have posted there. But actually, since I was banned from the talk page, the number of posts on that talk page has approached zero. Hardly anything at all has been said there. Therefore, your claim that I "took over" the talk page is false.
Your claim that it's because of me that "article work largely ground to a halt" is also false. I never, ever erased any well sourced material that anyone added to the page. I never, ever prevented anyone from adding anything to the article. Therefore, I never caused "article work largely ground to a halt." Furthermore, during the more than five months since I have been banned from the article, hardly any new info has been added to the article. How do you explain that?
How do you explain that during the more than five months that I have been banned, hardly any new discussion has taken place at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, and hardly any new info has been added to Presidency of Barack Obama? How can you blame me for this, when I haven't edited either of those pages in over five months? How can it possibly be my fault that hardly any changes have been made to that article or talk page in over five months, when I haven't made any edits there at all?
How can you blame me for other people's lack of editing an article and talk page, when I have not edited them for over five months?
What exactly have I done during the past five months to prevent other editors from editing that article and talk page?
And even when I was allowed to edit those things, how did I ever prevent anyone else from adding content? I didn't. I never, ever erased any well sourced info that anyone added. And I never, ever erased anything from the talk page. So you accusations against me are false.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone at ANI suggested that I edit Conservapedia.
That's a horrible suggestion, because:
1) Conservapedia is only about presenting the conservative point of view. I prefer a wiki that presents all points of view.
2) I am a very strong believer in biological evolution, I know the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, and I think Creationism is fiction.
3) I'm a libertarian, not a conservative.
4) The info that I added about medical marijuana and benefits for partners of gay federal employees are not things that conservapedia supports.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
But those very same people refuse to teach me the things that I wanted to learn about. That's very hypocritical of them.
I want to learn.
I very much want to learn.
But no one is willing to teach me the things that I want to learn.
When I asked important questions about wikipedia policy, instead of answering my questions and helping me learn, they banned me.
Therefore, for them to say "Grundle doesn't get it - he'll never learn" is completely hypocritical on their part.
I love to learn. I want to learn. I wish that someone was willing to teach me, and answer my questions.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The easiest way to get out of these sanction is to grovel. Grovel and repent. Not saying I approve only that is usually what's required to et a unblock here. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 23:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship looks like something that I could really get into. Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Grundle2600 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
On December 10, 2009, I made this edit to a biography of a living person.
Afterward, people explained to me that by making that edit, I was in violation of Wikipedia:Synth. That means that I took two separate facts, from two separate sources, and I combined them into one sentence, to try to prove a point which was not stated in either separate source. By doing this, I was violating Wikipedia:Synth.
On December 11, 2009, I changed the article so that it no longer violated Wikipedia:Synth. Specifically, instead of joining the two facts (from two separate sources) together in the same sentence, I separated the two facts, and had three entire paragraphs in between those two facts. That proved that I understood the policy of Wikipedia:Synth. That proved that I had learned my lesson.
On December 13, 2009, despite that it had been two days since I had fixed the problem that I had created, and despite the fact that it had been two days since I had already learned my lesson, User:Rd232 blocked me.
Wikipedia:Blocking policy states, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment."
Given that I had proven on December 11, 2009, that I had already learned my lesson, and given that blocks are meant as a teaching tool and not as a punishment, it doesn't follow wikipedia policy that User:Rd232 blocked me on December 13, 2009, two days after I already proven that I had learned my lesson.
Therefore, the block was in violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy, which states, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." I had already learned my lesson before I was blocked. And blocks are about learning, not punishment. Therefore, the block was never justified in the first place.
On December 18, 2009, as a condition for being unblocked, I agreed to the following condition: "Grundle is to refrain from posting his list of seven questions or referring to them anywhere on Wikipedia." My unblock request was granted.
On April 5, 2010, I broke that promise, and my block was reinstated.
I broke my promise, and the block being lifted had been based on me making and keeping that promise, so the block was reinstated.
However, after thinking about this some more, I now consider that condition for lifting my block to have been unreasonable.
My seven questions were all questions about wikipedia policy. I am a curious person, and I like to know and understand the wikipedia rules, so that I may follow the wikipedia rules.
There is no wikipedia policy that says we are not allowed to ask questions about wikipedia policy.
Therefore, the requirement for me to avoid asking those seven questions about wikipedia policy as a condition for being unblocked was unreasonable.
I am not sorry that I asked those questions about wikipedia policy again. Instead, I am sorry that I promised not to ask them again. There is nothing wrong with an editor asking questions about wikipedia policy.
So yes, I broke the promise on which my being unblocked was conditional. However, that promise had nothing to do with my violation of Wikipedia:Synth, which is why I was blocked in the first place.
I will never violate Wikipedia:Synth again.
But I should be allowed to ask questions about wikipedia policy.
Given that blocks are about learning, and given that I have learned about the Wikipedia:Synth policy, my block should be lifted.
And no one should require that I stop asking questions about wikipedia policy as a condition for my block to be lifted.
I am asking for my block to be lifted for the following reasons:
1) Blocks are about learning, not punishment. I learned that Wikipedia:Synth is against wikipedia policy.
2) When I was blocked on December 13, 2009, it had already been two days since I had proven that I had learned my lesson about Wikipedia:Synth. Since blocks are about learning and not punishment, the block was never justified in the first place.
3) It was unreasonable for them to require, as a condition for my block being lifted, a condition which had nothing to do with the block in the first place. Since I was blocked for violating Wikipedia:Synth, it was unreasonable for them to require me to agree not to ask questions about wikipedia policy as a condition for my block being lifted.
4) No editor should ever be told not to ask questions about wikipedia policy.
5) There is no wikipedia policy that says that editors are not allowed to ask questions about wikipedia policy.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 00:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
While you assert – correctly or not – that "blocks are about learning, not punishment", your continued insistence on raising and re-raising ad nauseam issues which you have been told are settled suggests that you have not learned from your past actions — nor from your previous blocks. The ultimate purpose of blocks is to protect the project from harm; and editors who persist in wasting the time of their colleagues are damaging to our work here. That you consider it appropriate to argue in this unblock request that you should not only be unblocked, but also be allowed to persist in the disruptive conduct which led to the original restrictions on your editing, is a compelling argument that you should remain blocked indefinitely. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:52, 8 April 2010 (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.
You added much. You are way too smart for this group, something that saddens me.-- 75.4.16.15 ( talk) 03:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Grundle2600, I'm sorry to tell you that you have been indefinitely banned by consensus of the Wikipedia community. Please see Wikipedia:Banning policy for further information. Given the discussion that led to the ban, I strongly recommend waiting at least one year before appealing it--and even then, I'm not sure an appeal would get you anywhere. I will not disable use of your talk page unless you give me a reason to, so please don't give me that reason.-- Chaser ( talk) 03:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tomy shooting gallery.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 00:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tomy obstacle course.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I saw this thread you started at freerepublic - that's too bad that wikipedia banned you http://www.google.com/#q=freerepublic+grundle+%22Wikipedia+banned+me+for+asking+why+Presidency+of+Barack+Obama+couldn%27t+contain+criticism.%22&num=30&hl=en&safe=off&filter=0&fp=bcdf8cbbf06dc4f
If it's any consolation, I see that someone has added the info about Obama favoring offshore drilling to "Presidency of Barack Obama" as well as a sentence about Van Jones. Since this info is now allowed in the article, perhaps they should unban you.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps the reason they banned you was because of your obsessional behavior, and not because of the content of your suggested edits. Perhaps if you had gone about proposing the same edits, but in a slower, more limited way, you wouldn't have been banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.235.47.41 ( talk) 17:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Grundle2600 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am asking that my block be changed from indefinite to three months, and that my ban be lifted entirely. I promise not to ask those seven questions anymore. I realize that I broke that promise the last time I made it, which is why I think I deserve a block of three months. I also think that anything longer than three months is excessive and inhumane. Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not a reviewable block. It's a community ban. It gets appealed to the community or the Arbitration Committee. If you want to appeal your ban to the community, then ask that. I strongly advise against an appeal at this time, but I will post it to ANI for you all the same. Chaser ( talk) 21:31, 11 April 2010 (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.
April 17, 2010
To: Wikipedia Arbitration Committee
I, User:Grundle2600, acknowledge to having conducted the following activities at wikipedia, all of which are against the rules:
In doing these things, I have jeopardized the project, and I have also wasted the time of other editors.
At the same time, it is also true that my contributions to non-political articles have been outstanding. I have created a huge number of such articles, many of which were featured in the "in the news" section of the main page. I have also improved many other previously existing non-political articles. The very long list of articles that I created can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Grundle2600&oldid=353969441#Articles_that_I_started
I acknowledge that the good things that I have done here are not an excuse or justification for the bad things.
In order to help improve the encyclopedia, I wish to create a set of circumstances which will allow me to continue doing good things to improve the encyclopedia, while simultaneously providing me with strong incentives to avoid causing harm to the encyclopedia.
I propose that my community ban be lifted.
I propose that I be automatically blocked for 30 days if I do any of the following. There is no need to have a long, drawn out ANI discussion for such a block - any admin may carry out the block, and any non-admin may suggest such a block at ANI or on the talk page of any admin. These are the actions that, if carried out my be, will result in an automatic 30 day block for me:
If I do any of these things, I am to be automatically blocked for 30 days, and there is no need for a long, drawn out ANI discussion.
This proposal, if adopted, would allow me to continue doing the good things that I have done here for the past three years, while simultaneously providing me with a substantial disincentive for doing the bad things which I have done in the past.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Sincerely,
Grundle2600
Grundle2600 ( talk) 22:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Air Force One photo op incident, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force One photo op incident. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Mangroomer, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangroomer. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SilkTork * YES! 00:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Gerald Walpin, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 01:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Barbara Bullock, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Bullock until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 22:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Reann Ballslee, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reann Ballslee until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 23:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Mark Addison, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Addison until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 18:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Lance Thomas (watch merchant) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lance Thomas (watch merchant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 14:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Twanda Carlisle is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twanda Carlisle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 14:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tramp Stamp Barbie.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The article HealthAccessRI is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HealthAccessRI until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 12:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Extra Mile Education Foundation is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extra Mile Education Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 12:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Mismatching is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mismatching until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 12:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Dear IRS is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear IRS until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rd232 talk 12:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The article YaVaughnie Wilkins has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Ladyof
Shalott 23:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article B&W mPower 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/B&W mPower until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Payppp ( talk) 23:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Please do not swear on talk pages as this is considered offensive. Thank you Scottdelaney1067 ( talk) 01:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The article Flippopotamus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Sven Manguard
Wha? 03:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 03:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hall and Oates Voices alternative cover art.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 19:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Whisson Windmill 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/Whisson Windmill 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. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 22:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The article Markus (prostitute) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?) 00:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Markus (prostitute) 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/Markus (prostitute) 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Safari cards 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/Safari cards 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. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Jennifer Daugherty 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/Murder of Jennifer Daugherty (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on 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. Transcendence ( talk) 19:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you still watch this page at all? Tarc ( talk) 02:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Dropdeadfred.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 23:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The article PlayPower has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. –
czar 00:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Team Sarah. Since you had some involvement with the Team Sarah redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 23:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wiihabilitation. Since you had some involvement with the Wiihabilitation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst ✈ 15:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Grundle2600,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Education crisis should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education crisis .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks, Mduvekot ( talk) 16:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Good Clean Fun (Bonnie Hayes album cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The article LEXID has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non-notable product.
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. ♠
PMC♠
(talk) 12:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect H.R. 1503. Since you had some involvement with the H.R. 1503 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Power~enwiki ( talk) 04:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect We demand more asbestos!. Since you had some involvement with the We demand more asbestos! redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thegreatluigi ( talk) 13:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Doogie Howser GOP. Since you had some involvement with the Doogie Howser GOP redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 05:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tomy obstacle course.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) 02:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:KAOS logo from Get Smart.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The article Virtual cocoon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Article based on a 2009 wave of promotional churnalism, about a forthcoming product that doesn't appear to have come to fruition. No evidence of notability. WP:BEFORE shows the churnalism.
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.
David Gerard (
talk) 09:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Compact 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/The Compact (2nd nomination) 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. Boleyn ( talk) 08:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Empowerment Experiment 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/Empowerment Experiment 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. Daask ( talk) 23:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Empowerment Experiment 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/Empowerment Experiment 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. Daask ( talk) 23:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vintage Estate Wine and Beer 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.
Mccapra ( talk) 08:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Raiders of the Phantom Menace. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Raiders of the Phantom Menace until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 06:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indiana Jones and the Phantom Menace. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Indiana Jones and the Phantom Menace until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 06:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The article How to Survive (TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No indication of notability; fails WP:GNG.
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.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 21:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sabrina76.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) 03:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feral rhesus macaque 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.
Mooonswimmer 21:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The article Eric Schansberg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Subject lacks significant coverage in sources independent of the subject and article primarily relys on sources authored by the article subject.
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.
Tdl1060 (
talk) 08:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
The article Isabelle Redford has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Lacks notability, sourced coverage is from one minor story from over a decade ago. No additional coverage seems to exist since. Additional data (unsourced) and self-promotion seems to have been added more recently by the subject themselves.
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.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Underfunded public school system and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 13#Underfunded public school system until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Partofthemachine ( talk) 22:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Drop Dead Fred (2011 film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 15 § Drop Dead Fred (2011 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mike Allen 03:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
The article Is It Possible? has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2020
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.
DonaldD23
talk to me 11:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rielle Hunter 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.
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The article Rise of the Video Game has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Does not appear to pass WP:NTV or WP:GNG, tagged for notability since 2016
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.
DonaldD23
talk to me 14:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The article Some Assembly Required (2007 TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
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.
DonaldD23
talk to me 13:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Some Assembly Required (2007 TV series) 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.DonaldD23 talk to me 13:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The file File:NASA global temperature data 1880-2009.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, issues with file extension (.gif but actually .png), unclear what green bars refer to (see talk)
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 files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. --
TheImaCow (
talk) 14:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)