That's a very attractive talkpage you've got here. Minimalist yet striking. darwinbish BITE ☠ 23:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for your contributions to WP! Sorry for the whole Trump thing. Hopefully I did not come off in a bad light. I was not trying to be an ass or anything. As I said I don't think either of us did anything particularly reprehensible, but I still feel responsible for getting us both sacked. Hope this pie makes up for anything I did or failed to do. Cheers (and for the record I'm not a MAGA person, not that I would let it get in the way of NPOV if I was) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC) |
The Civility Barnstar | ||
For being unbelievably civil in your response to a frustrating situation here in our community of volunteers (the irony of the beverage in this barnstar is not lost on me). 172.56.21.117 ( talk) 21:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC) |
Editor's priviledge -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Be careful of 1RR [1] [2] ~ Awilley ( talk) 13:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@
Awilley: I can self-revert if you like, but it will just mean another editor will have to revert my revert, since we already have a consensus on the new version. Do you want me to do that to avoid sanction? Also, I can't actually do an "undo" of
the edit in question because of subsequent edits. I'll have to do it manually, then someone else will have to revert my edit. This all seems rather pointless, but I'll do it to avoid sanction if you insist. --
Scjessey (
talk) 15:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Scjessey had the courtesy to notify me of this discussion, as all his reverts today challenged my edits. Technically he did perform three reverts of newly-added content: 11:28, 13:34 and 13:42. On the other hand, he engaged in good-faith discussion on the talk page, and recognized his errors when pointed out. [3] Any sanction should be lenient. — JFG talk 18:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
For upholding the spirit of BRD at Talk:Donald Trump#Reversion explanation. — JFG talk 07:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC) |
While I obviously disagree with you regarding my Trump article edits, and I believe in God, it seems we agree on a number of things. I agree that organized religion does more harm than good, whether it's Islamic terrorism or Catholic priests abusing children and covering it up. I am likewise a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I believe in a woman's right to abortion, and same-sex marriage (if you are against abortion, don't have one, and if you are against same-sex marriage don't marry someone of the same sex - but don't tell other people what to do with their lives). Everyone should have the same rights and protections - no more and no less. I believe in smaller government, but recognize that there are some issues only a strong federal government can address (e.g. environmental protection, workplace safety). I believe the Constitution has been weakened in many ways, in particular by subrogating States' rights, expansion of the commerce clause, and by Congress delegating rulemaking to executive agencies.
And who doesn't like baklava? JohnTopShelf ( talk) 21:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC) |
Greetings!
I have in the past offered unsolicited criticism of the nature of your participation at Talk:Donald Trump. I don't have a clear memory of what I complained about, but I do recall thinking you were flirting with topic ban. I came here to tell you that I perceived a marked improvement I guess about 6 months ago, and it has been a lasting one. I appreciate it, and I wanted to give credit where credit is due. I don't think this has much to do with the fact that you seem to side with me a lot lately; at least I hope I'm not that shallow.
I'd spend the time trying to find an appropriate barnstar, but it appears you don't save them here or on your user page.
So I arrived here and noticed the previous section, in which you received a complaint from an experienced editor (his adminship is perhaps irrelevant, I don't know), and you neither responded to the complaint nor acted on it. You just ignored the complaint, and the comment he referred to made it into the archive. So my high praise has to be tempered slightly.
Looking forward to a continued working relationship. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Here's your friendly annual DS alert refresh for the AP2 topic area, about 11 months overdue. Enjoy! ― Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I think your arguments on the Biden RfC would be stronger if you left out discussion of the credibility of the accusations and the role of Sanders and Trump supporters in promoting them. This could alienate Sanders and Trump supporters who might otherwise agree with you. We cannot know how credible the arguments are or are not and one would expect Biden's opponents to pay more attention to allegations against him, regardless of their credibility, than his own supporters. These are the same arguments supporters of Kavanaugh used. The only policy based reason for exclusion is weight. TFD ( talk) 18:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.I think the sources we have fall short of those requirements. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Had to shake my head about
this one. You started with "Exactly", indicating you agreed with SPECIFICO that Personal opinions are not really helpful - there's no way they can support article improvement, so it's best to leave them out
. Then you finished with, wait for it, a personal opinion, indicating that your personal opinions are ok, the only problem is personal opinions contrary to yours. Do you listen to yourself?
I'm fairly resigned to some amount of that kind of talk in article talk. I even do a bit of it myself. I am not resigned to editors lecturing others in the same comment as they do the same thing they are lecturing about. ― Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Greetings Scjessey. In recent weeks, you have repeatedly indulged in hyperbole when commenting at Talk:Donald Trump:
I'm puzzled as how you think such remarks are useful to the conversation. If you still think Trump is Hitler reincarnate, keep it to yourself and get a stiff drink. In general, please tone it down or bite your tongue. — JFG talk 01:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Check 1RR at Trump. ― Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Scjessey, I feel your pain on the BLP/Biden thread. I don't know whether you are aware that this editor is under a short-term ban from the Biden article and that there's been related discussion on its talk page and at User_talk:Bradv#1RR_violations. Stiff upper lip, etc. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Scjessey, please tell me what you meant by this. I do not appreciate that; I hope we have a misunderstanding. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 15:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Re this, it looks to be the same IP since the first four "words" of the address are the same, 2600:1702:2340:9470. The remainder of the address changes automatically and frequently for a given user. ― Mandruss ☎ 12:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For actually reading and sticking to what sources say. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
Why did I have the impression you weren't around these parts anymore? Good to see you! Tvoz/ talk 03:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Tvoz likes this.
Was the stupid comments edit summary really necessary? Glen 13:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
In the last 3 months you have made 178 edits to Talk:Donald Trump and only 7 edits to Donald Trump. Of those 7, 4 were reverts and 3 were minor edits. This is not what "building an encyclopedia" looks like. If your posts on the talk page were all related to article development that would be one thing, but too high a proportion of your posts are you venting and expressing your personal opinions about the latest outrage or simply arguing with other editors. Here are a couple examples plucked from the current revision of the talk page:
Some of the arguments favoring Trump's COVID-19 response here are just astonishing. Mainstream media overwhelmingly describes the administration's response as being nine kinds of crap. Just look at the charts showing new cases and deaths and compare them with literally any other "first world" country, and it is clear the US response has SUCKED. Now the good name of Fauci is being dragged through the mud because some of the things he said earlier in the crisis were not accurate, despite the fact that it is a GOOD THING for scientists to revise their recommendations as new data comes in. It is almost impossible to overstate how badly the Trump administration has handled COVID-19, and blanket "oppose all" statements not accompanied by reasonable alternatives are absolutely useless to this discussion.
It's particularly funny given that Trump is STILL claiming COVID19 will just "go away" without a vaccine.
The only reason I mentioned it is that technically I believe the responsibility lies with Bill Barr. He could prevent this from happening, but he has become such a weakened Attorney General he basically does whatever he is told to do.(Citation needed for Barr just doing "whatever he is told to", otherwise it's a BLP vio)
If you want more examples, simply follow the links given in this sample of warnings from other users who have asked you to cool down and stop making unhelpful comments: Drmies [7] MrX [8], Mandruss [9], Puedo [10], and myself [11]. Really, it's time to stop. Otherwise I'm prepared to drop a topic ban. ~ Awilley ( talk) 16:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean “every single person on the team gets to play?” I literally can’t tell if your joking or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B1AB:433B:403A:6822:C042:6320 ( talk) 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey I saw the picture in the Triumph Trident 660 was taken by you. I just bought one yesterday and was going to do up a new picture for the info box. Do you have any issue with that? PackMecEng ( talk) 13:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Both of you please wear your helmets so you can keep up the editing here. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@ PackMecEng: One reason why I have not bought a 660 is that I am hoping to do a bit of touring and the Trident isn't ideally suited to attaching saddlebags, etc. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @
Scjessey:
I have been doing some research on
Ashtead and I understand that you lived in the village for a time. In the past few months, I have been working to improve a draft of the current article here -
User:Mertbiol/sandbox2. I wondered if you would be willing to take a look and to let me know if there are areas that need to be improved or if there are key aspects of the village that you feel are not covered. I would be very happy for you to leave feedback here or for you to edit the draft directly - whatever is easiest for you.
Thanks and best wishes
Mertbiol (
talk) 09:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @
Scjessey:
Hope all is well with you. I've been working on the
Epsom article over the past few months and I am thinking about submitting it for
WP:GA. I'm sure you visited the town many times when you lived in Ashtead and I wondered if you'd be willing to take a look at the article and let me know your thoughts as to how I could improve it before nomination? I have set up a
new section on the talk page for interested parties to discuss what additional work is required. I will ask a few others to chip in with their feedback and suggestions.
Thanks and best wishes,
Mertbiol (
talk) 07:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I thought you may be interested as you mentioned some years ago on the tablet talk page that Sainsburys had a "butter fudge" in their range. Who knows whether this incarnation is the same beast but I noticed they now have an " all butter fudge". This is soft and malleable, like a fudge, but a little less so than the average and has a slightly crumbly aspect about it. The flavour is somewhat intermediate between your average fudge and tablet and, when partially dissolved in the mouth, has an aspect to the mouth feel that is a little tablet-like too, I'm guessing down to slightly larger sugar crystals. Not bad an alternative if tablet's not available. I don't mean to needlessly tantalise you with the information that is of little practical use, you now being in the States. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 22:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
i have been wondering what you have been up to over the years! Came across your photo on here and instantly recognised you! It's Vanessa (from our Trewint Street days in the early 90s). Not sure I will receive replies on here without creating an account but have sent you a message on Facebook (well I THINK it was you anyway! Haha). Would be great to be in touch again and hear all your adventures over the last god knows how many years!! Vanessa x 2.26.65.92 ( talk) 23:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Rymer 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.That's a very attractive talkpage you've got here. Minimalist yet striking. darwinbish BITE ☠ 23:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC).
Thanks for your contributions to WP! Sorry for the whole Trump thing. Hopefully I did not come off in a bad light. I was not trying to be an ass or anything. As I said I don't think either of us did anything particularly reprehensible, but I still feel responsible for getting us both sacked. Hope this pie makes up for anything I did or failed to do. Cheers (and for the record I'm not a MAGA person, not that I would let it get in the way of NPOV if I was) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC) |
The Civility Barnstar | ||
For being unbelievably civil in your response to a frustrating situation here in our community of volunteers (the irony of the beverage in this barnstar is not lost on me). 172.56.21.117 ( talk) 21:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC) |
Editor's priviledge -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Be careful of 1RR [1] [2] ~ Awilley ( talk) 13:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@
Awilley: I can self-revert if you like, but it will just mean another editor will have to revert my revert, since we already have a consensus on the new version. Do you want me to do that to avoid sanction? Also, I can't actually do an "undo" of
the edit in question because of subsequent edits. I'll have to do it manually, then someone else will have to revert my edit. This all seems rather pointless, but I'll do it to avoid sanction if you insist. --
Scjessey (
talk) 15:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Scjessey had the courtesy to notify me of this discussion, as all his reverts today challenged my edits. Technically he did perform three reverts of newly-added content: 11:28, 13:34 and 13:42. On the other hand, he engaged in good-faith discussion on the talk page, and recognized his errors when pointed out. [3] Any sanction should be lenient. — JFG talk 18:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
For upholding the spirit of BRD at Talk:Donald Trump#Reversion explanation. — JFG talk 07:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC) |
While I obviously disagree with you regarding my Trump article edits, and I believe in God, it seems we agree on a number of things. I agree that organized religion does more harm than good, whether it's Islamic terrorism or Catholic priests abusing children and covering it up. I am likewise a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I believe in a woman's right to abortion, and same-sex marriage (if you are against abortion, don't have one, and if you are against same-sex marriage don't marry someone of the same sex - but don't tell other people what to do with their lives). Everyone should have the same rights and protections - no more and no less. I believe in smaller government, but recognize that there are some issues only a strong federal government can address (e.g. environmental protection, workplace safety). I believe the Constitution has been weakened in many ways, in particular by subrogating States' rights, expansion of the commerce clause, and by Congress delegating rulemaking to executive agencies.
And who doesn't like baklava? JohnTopShelf ( talk) 21:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC) |
Greetings!
I have in the past offered unsolicited criticism of the nature of your participation at Talk:Donald Trump. I don't have a clear memory of what I complained about, but I do recall thinking you were flirting with topic ban. I came here to tell you that I perceived a marked improvement I guess about 6 months ago, and it has been a lasting one. I appreciate it, and I wanted to give credit where credit is due. I don't think this has much to do with the fact that you seem to side with me a lot lately; at least I hope I'm not that shallow.
I'd spend the time trying to find an appropriate barnstar, but it appears you don't save them here or on your user page.
So I arrived here and noticed the previous section, in which you received a complaint from an experienced editor (his adminship is perhaps irrelevant, I don't know), and you neither responded to the complaint nor acted on it. You just ignored the complaint, and the comment he referred to made it into the archive. So my high praise has to be tempered slightly.
Looking forward to a continued working relationship. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Here's your friendly annual DS alert refresh for the AP2 topic area, about 11 months overdue. Enjoy! ― Mandruss ☎ 23:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I think your arguments on the Biden RfC would be stronger if you left out discussion of the credibility of the accusations and the role of Sanders and Trump supporters in promoting them. This could alienate Sanders and Trump supporters who might otherwise agree with you. We cannot know how credible the arguments are or are not and one would expect Biden's opponents to pay more attention to allegations against him, regardless of their credibility, than his own supporters. These are the same arguments supporters of Kavanaugh used. The only policy based reason for exclusion is weight. TFD ( talk) 18:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.I think the sources we have fall short of those requirements. -- Scjessey ( talk) 20:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Had to shake my head about
this one. You started with "Exactly", indicating you agreed with SPECIFICO that Personal opinions are not really helpful - there's no way they can support article improvement, so it's best to leave them out
. Then you finished with, wait for it, a personal opinion, indicating that your personal opinions are ok, the only problem is personal opinions contrary to yours. Do you listen to yourself?
I'm fairly resigned to some amount of that kind of talk in article talk. I even do a bit of it myself. I am not resigned to editors lecturing others in the same comment as they do the same thing they are lecturing about. ― Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Greetings Scjessey. In recent weeks, you have repeatedly indulged in hyperbole when commenting at Talk:Donald Trump:
I'm puzzled as how you think such remarks are useful to the conversation. If you still think Trump is Hitler reincarnate, keep it to yourself and get a stiff drink. In general, please tone it down or bite your tongue. — JFG talk 01:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Check 1RR at Trump. ― Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Scjessey, I feel your pain on the BLP/Biden thread. I don't know whether you are aware that this editor is under a short-term ban from the Biden article and that there's been related discussion on its talk page and at User_talk:Bradv#1RR_violations. Stiff upper lip, etc. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Scjessey, please tell me what you meant by this. I do not appreciate that; I hope we have a misunderstanding. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 15:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Re this, it looks to be the same IP since the first four "words" of the address are the same, 2600:1702:2340:9470. The remainder of the address changes automatically and frequently for a given user. ― Mandruss ☎ 12:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For actually reading and sticking to what sources say. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
Why did I have the impression you weren't around these parts anymore? Good to see you! Tvoz/ talk 03:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Tvoz likes this.
Was the stupid comments edit summary really necessary? Glen 13:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
In the last 3 months you have made 178 edits to Talk:Donald Trump and only 7 edits to Donald Trump. Of those 7, 4 were reverts and 3 were minor edits. This is not what "building an encyclopedia" looks like. If your posts on the talk page were all related to article development that would be one thing, but too high a proportion of your posts are you venting and expressing your personal opinions about the latest outrage or simply arguing with other editors. Here are a couple examples plucked from the current revision of the talk page:
Some of the arguments favoring Trump's COVID-19 response here are just astonishing. Mainstream media overwhelmingly describes the administration's response as being nine kinds of crap. Just look at the charts showing new cases and deaths and compare them with literally any other "first world" country, and it is clear the US response has SUCKED. Now the good name of Fauci is being dragged through the mud because some of the things he said earlier in the crisis were not accurate, despite the fact that it is a GOOD THING for scientists to revise their recommendations as new data comes in. It is almost impossible to overstate how badly the Trump administration has handled COVID-19, and blanket "oppose all" statements not accompanied by reasonable alternatives are absolutely useless to this discussion.
It's particularly funny given that Trump is STILL claiming COVID19 will just "go away" without a vaccine.
The only reason I mentioned it is that technically I believe the responsibility lies with Bill Barr. He could prevent this from happening, but he has become such a weakened Attorney General he basically does whatever he is told to do.(Citation needed for Barr just doing "whatever he is told to", otherwise it's a BLP vio)
If you want more examples, simply follow the links given in this sample of warnings from other users who have asked you to cool down and stop making unhelpful comments: Drmies [7] MrX [8], Mandruss [9], Puedo [10], and myself [11]. Really, it's time to stop. Otherwise I'm prepared to drop a topic ban. ~ Awilley ( talk) 16:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean “every single person on the team gets to play?” I literally can’t tell if your joking or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B1AB:433B:403A:6822:C042:6320 ( talk) 16:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey I saw the picture in the Triumph Trident 660 was taken by you. I just bought one yesterday and was going to do up a new picture for the info box. Do you have any issue with that? PackMecEng ( talk) 13:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Both of you please wear your helmets so you can keep up the editing here. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@ PackMecEng: One reason why I have not bought a 660 is that I am hoping to do a bit of touring and the Trident isn't ideally suited to attaching saddlebags, etc. -- Scjessey ( talk) 19:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi @
Scjessey:
I have been doing some research on
Ashtead and I understand that you lived in the village for a time. In the past few months, I have been working to improve a draft of the current article here -
User:Mertbiol/sandbox2. I wondered if you would be willing to take a look and to let me know if there are areas that need to be improved or if there are key aspects of the village that you feel are not covered. I would be very happy for you to leave feedback here or for you to edit the draft directly - whatever is easiest for you.
Thanks and best wishes
Mertbiol (
talk) 09:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @
Scjessey:
Hope all is well with you. I've been working on the
Epsom article over the past few months and I am thinking about submitting it for
WP:GA. I'm sure you visited the town many times when you lived in Ashtead and I wondered if you'd be willing to take a look at the article and let me know your thoughts as to how I could improve it before nomination? I have set up a
new section on the talk page for interested parties to discuss what additional work is required. I will ask a few others to chip in with their feedback and suggestions.
Thanks and best wishes,
Mertbiol (
talk) 07:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I thought you may be interested as you mentioned some years ago on the tablet talk page that Sainsburys had a "butter fudge" in their range. Who knows whether this incarnation is the same beast but I noticed they now have an " all butter fudge". This is soft and malleable, like a fudge, but a little less so than the average and has a slightly crumbly aspect about it. The flavour is somewhat intermediate between your average fudge and tablet and, when partially dissolved in the mouth, has an aspect to the mouth feel that is a little tablet-like too, I'm guessing down to slightly larger sugar crystals. Not bad an alternative if tablet's not available. I don't mean to needlessly tantalise you with the information that is of little practical use, you now being in the States. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 22:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
i have been wondering what you have been up to over the years! Came across your photo on here and instantly recognised you! It's Vanessa (from our Trewint Street days in the early 90s). Not sure I will receive replies on here without creating an account but have sent you a message on Facebook (well I THINK it was you anyway! Haha). Would be great to be in touch again and hear all your adventures over the last god knows how many years!! Vanessa x 2.26.65.92 ( talk) 23:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Rymer 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.