Misplaced Pages

User talk:Nssdfdsfds: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:22, 7 March 2007 edit62.136.198.105 (talk) Blocked sockpuppet vandal← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:33, 23 November 2015 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,139,118 edits →ArbCom elections are now open!: new section 
(47 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
bye
moo
==Rose (goat)==
A "{{]}}" template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the ] process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "]" and ]). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the <code><nowiki>{{dated prod}}</nowiki></code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ] ] 22:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
==Fair use disputed for Image:Tillybagshawe.jpg==
]
Thanks for uploading ''']'''. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at ] carefully, then go to ] and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.


If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:No fair -->] 05:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


==AfD nomination of Sudanese goat marriage incident==
<!-- Template from Template:Welcomeg -->{| style="background-color:#F5FFFA; padding:0;" cellpadding="0"
]I have nominated ], an article you created, for ]. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. 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. <small>Do you want to ] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 00:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
|class="MainPageBG" style="border:1px solid #084080; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top; color:#000000; font-size:85%"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA; padding:0;"
! <div style="margin:0; background-color:#CEF2E0; font-family:sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #084080; text-align:left; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top:0.2em; padding-bottom:0.2em;">Hello Nssdfdsfds! ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]. If you decide that you need help, check out ''Getting Help'' below, ask me on my talk page, or place '''<tt>{&#123;helpme&#125;}</tt>''' on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to ] on talk pages by clicking ] or using four tildes (~&#126;~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to '''always fill in the ] field'''. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ] 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
|}
{| width="100%" style="background-color:#F5FFFA;"
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA"
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Started</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
* ] • ]
* How to: ] • ]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Getting Help</div>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
* ]
* ]
* ]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Policies and Guidelines</div>
|-
| style="color:#000"|
* ] • ]
* ] • ] • ]
* ] • ]
<hr />
* ] • ] • ]
* ] • ] • ]
* ] • ] • ]
* ] • ] • ]
|-
|}
|class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #FFFFFF; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top"|
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background-color:#F5FFFA"
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">The Community</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
* ] • ]
* ] • ] • ]
* ] • ]
* ] • ]
* ] • ] • ]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Things to do</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
* ] • ]
* ] • ]
* ] • ]
* Cleaning up: ] • ] • ]
|-
! <div style="margin: 0; background-color:#084080; font-family: sans-serif; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #CEF2E0; text-align:left; color:#FFC000; padding-left:0.4em; padding-top: 0.2em; padding-bottom: 0.2em;">Miscellaneous</div>
|-
|style="color:#000"|
* ] • ] • ]
* ] • ]
* ] • ]
|-
|}
|}
|}<!--Template:Welcomeg-->


== ] nomination of ] ==
{{repost-warn|Neil Woodford}} ] 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also ] and "]").


Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).
We obviously don't see eye to eye on the edits for the ] page. I have created a discussion topic (topic no. 26 on the ] talk page) to address my concern with the recent edits to the article. ] 10:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
== Users ==


'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I got your note and left a warning on ]'s page. -] · ] · 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


== ] nomination of ] ==
For the record, I have no affiliation with terryfilene22. Administrators on Misplaced Pages can check my IP address to be absolutely sure of this. A lot of people find the Center for Consumer Freedom to be a controversial group (particularly animal rights people), so it's not surprising that people would feel strongly about these edits. ] 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>I have nominated ], an article that you created, for ]. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. 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. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 00:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
]


The article ] has been ]&#32; because of the following concern:
:''']. Also, this article is ], ], incomplete and unmaintained.'''


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ].
== AfD ==


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
1. AfD is not a "vote". It is a discussion.
2. Calling people spammers serves no purpose other than to ]. --]<font color="red">]</font>]&nbsp;<small>]&nbsp;]</small> 03:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 16:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
== Third revert ==


== ] ==
I'm counting. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 11:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
==How is one supposed to cite a personal letter from the BBC==
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692047625 -->
Please discuss before you revert an article again which contains information people want to know. ] 16:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:Unless it's published by the BBC you can't. There's no way of verifying whether it actually did come from the BBC. It just can't go in the article. There's plenty in blogs that people 'want to know', but doesn't mean it should go in wikipedia. ] 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

==Milton==
See . There is more rambling but Jzg was pretty much a lone voice arguing for its removal. The version of the article that was settled on and sat happily for 2 months is here - , the location of the blog is given. ] 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

== Wikistalking ==

You have nominated an article of mine for deletion, and are systematically reverting my edits. This is ] and is seriously objectionable. Desist immediately. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:Haven't you learned? You've just been banned for persistent insults of me, and instead of coming back to work productively, you're now coming out with ridiculous allegations of wikistalking? This kind of behaviour is unproductive and antagonistic. I make no apologies for watching the interrelated articles on Anne Milton, Paul Staines, Tim Ireland, etc., as these are subjects of interest to any UK political blog watcher, and I think you're flattering yourself if you think my AFD of some days ago was motivated by your involvement: I have nominated half-a-dozen or more articles for deletion recently. I'm not going to back off from removing your POV from articles because of your threats. ] 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

::I am trying to make more informative articles by adding relevant content which is perfectly well-sourced. You are systematically reverting and instead of arguing based on the merits of the situation, you make a baseless allegation of POV. For what it's worth I am on record as saying I don't believe the accusation against Paul Staines, dislike Tim Ireland, and have no personal feelings over Anne Milton. To top it all you then flaunt irrelevant previous bans. Whether I was insulting you or not does not mean that you were correct in what you were doing. Now argue the merits of the issue and don't revert war. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 15:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:::I am not sure what you mean. I have argued the merits of the issues. I responded on Talk. Your 'source' appear to be the attack blog of Tim Ireland, someone who apparently deluged ] with emails, and has left dozens of repetitive comments on Mr Staines' blog. This is not a reliable source. Regardless of what you're saying here, you've linked to Ireland's vituperative attacks on two different pages. You have also edited Mr Ireland's page to remove the clear truth that his targets have been right-wing. I am not sure why. We obviously have different opinions on these matters. I have made mine clear. Telling me not to revert war is advice you should follow yourself, as these things take two. ] 15:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

::::Please be aware ] applies to talk pages as well and you've just made a questionable allegation against Tim Ireland. Whatever he may have done, though, is irrelevant. The issue is whether it's reasonable to source an email sent by Paul Staines to Tim Ireland to its publication on Tim Ireland's weblog: the answer can only be "yes". Paul Staines is not disputing it. If your objection to my copyedit on ] was that it didn't include "right-wing", why did you not just add that rather than reverting entirely? And are you forgetting Tim Ireland's attacks on Tony Blair? ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::Hmm, questionable allegations? Mr Ireland has said that "Manic learned during his extended probing of Staines' comments that often all you have to do is keep plugging away until enough people see your pre-deletion comments for 'Guido' to think that there are perhaps too many witnesses to brush the matter under the carpet. " He also made multiple responses (as Guido 2.0) to a post from a blogger commenting on his deluge of emails to 18 Doughty Street. The emails weren't disputed. Commenting on this in a talk page is very different from commenting on that which most definitely *is* libellous, as shown by the multiple takedowns on these blogs.

:::::Tim Ireland's blog is not a reliable source for any article other than ]. That is very clear. I reject your initial thesis, that this stuff should be reported at all, and moreover reject that Ireland, who has the rather stalkerish ID of "Guido 2.0", and operates a dedicated attack blog is a reliable source, nor indeed that blogs in general are reliable sources for anything other than the blogger themselves. Re the attacks on Blair, these are rather different in kind from creating "Iain Dale is a liar" buttons and pursuing ongoing long-winded vendettas against Staines, Dale and Milton. They are already addressed separately in the article via the Backing Blair article. They should not be grouped together. The blog attack targets are right-wing figures. Fact. ] 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::In reverse order: You haven't answered the question. If you thought it should be stated that Tim Ireland criticisms are targeted at right-wingers, why did you not simply add that, rather than reverting? Yes, the attacks on Blair are different: they are much more extreme. There's a fundamental difference between demanding someone apologise and that they resign, and between calling someone a liar, and calling them a murderer. Then, as a very great admirer of ], I may say I like the way you observe that a blog is not a reliable source for anything other than the opinions of its blogger, while simultaneously sourcing a controversial assertion to a random blogger's observation of what he saw over someone's shoulder. I still do not see the relevance, though, of your opinions of Tim Ireland's ''modus operandi''. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 16:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::::But there was no other content change in your edit. There was nothing lost in my revert, yes you moved some words around, but I didn't see that your rearrangement edit was a particular improvement to care either way. Secondly, the attacks on Blair are fundamentally different, and should not be grouped together. It was a serious attack. This involves alter egos called "Manic", "Guido 2.0", and petty squabbles. My sourcing the random blogger's observation is irrelevant - I could quite happily remove the allegations from my talk pages, because there's plenty else to prove my point, namely that Ireland has pursued a deeply dedicated vendetta against Staines, and that blogs are not a ]. I don't care about whether or not he sends lots of emails or not. It matters not. I am not asking for it to be included in an article and sourcing it to a blog. You are. The difference is clear. I am happy for you to remove the link to a blog from this page, and then you can remove it from the ] article. Fair? ] 16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::::You are engaging in a straw man argument. I'm not taking issue with your views here of Tim Ireland (not endorsing them either). I'm disputing your (]) revert which uses the emotive and pejorative word "attack" rather than the neutral and descriptive word "criticism". In relation to Paul Staines, the general principle applying is that if the subject of an article is notable, then reasonable criticism is notable and should be reported. The fact that Staines flaunts his defiance of the libel laws but then attempts to use them is notable. The fact that he has been criticised for hypocrisy for so doing is notable. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::In reverse order: Mr Staines has in fact removed many libellous claims from his site following legal threats, as a few months reading his site would show (or even a google search). As you have argued yourself, in removing it from the article on him, his claims of not being subject to libel by being based in Nevis are wrong. The criticism of him, entirely by bloggers, is not something we can discuss as it is without reliable sourcing and has no place in the article. I don't think that criticism blog is a word in common currency, and does not correctly characterise the blog. A criticism blog would be one such as Biased BBC . There is a clear difference in tenor between that and Mr. Ireland's blogs. Blogs inviting people to download "Iain Dale is a liar" buttons and mocking the format of their subject are attack blogs. I am not sure why you are trying to incorrectly characterise it as merely "critical". ] 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::Follow the easy stages. 1) You accept that criticism can be acceptable if sourced. 2) You accept that blogs are sources for what is said on the blog. 3) Paul Staines has been criticised on some blogs. 4) It is reasonable to mention that criticism and source it to the blogs making it. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 17:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::Thanks for making it easy for me to repudiate your claims. 1) Yes, to a reliable source. (2) No, I didn't say that. I said "Tim Ireland's blog is not a reliable source for any article other than ]. " Blogs are not a reliable source for information on anyone other than their own author. I think this fact is blindingly obvious (3) We don't report this, not a ]. (4) Fails because of 2 and 3. ] 17:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, we're agreed on 1. On 2, whatever you may have said, the interpretation is the same: Blogs are sources for what is contained on the blog. On 3, your response is nonsense. It is manifestly a correct observation about what is said on some blogs. On 4 you deliberately don't engage with the argument. ]. &#147;] ] ]&#148;. 17:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

==Milton==
Be aware of the ] rule, you did 4 reverts in 24 hour which is a breach of the rules. ] 11:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:I can't see that you can count this: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anne_Milton&diff=108428760&oldid=108335528, which you are counting as the first revert as one of four reverts with this edit, made 23 hours 48 minutes later http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Anne_Milton&diff=108823860&oldid=108691083
::see . ] 12:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks for ignoring my response explaining that the first revert was not the same. Please don't engage in this time-wasting any more. ] 18:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::::It doesn't matter. Read the policy: "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted." ] 19:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Ok, well I'm sorry if that was the case. There were so many edits between the first and the fourth, 23 hours 48 minutes later that I didn't even notice the first one. I'm not sure that 3RR is intended for people turning up forty hours after the first edit to use as a stick with which to beat the other user.] 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

==3RR==
Just to let you know, you should avoid reverting ] any further or risk breaching the ]. Clearly the ] process is more appropriate now. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the patience to get involved any further myself. Cheers, ] 19:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

:"exceptions to the rule include:"

:"Reverting clear copyright violations or clearly libellous material;" So if it's libellous I'll remove it. ] 20:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

::Which material is libellous?--] 03:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

== Concerning ] ==

A good day to you...I've restored the article, but I still think that it doesn't establish the ] of the subject. As the only links provided are the pages of the subject of the article, it isn't ] either. Also, it is not compulsory to inform others about a speedy deletion, as you dont ] an article. I shall watch the article. Regards. ] 12:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

:Nothing's *compulsory*, but if we are all trying to produce better articles, then informing people is better than just deleting their work, especially when they have plenty of edits to other articles and are obviously not spammers. In this case I see now it was actually listed by somebody else, and so I'd have been better directing this at them, so I guess you were following up, but I didn't notice this speedy deletion listing since it wasn't added till it was three days old by this time and already edited by somebody else, and I wasn't watching it, and it's unfortunately not possible to see who actually tagged it after the page had been deleted. Incidentally there is actually one link to a third party, not the subject of the article, and I think the notability of a billion pound company with >600 outlets is obvious. ] 14:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

== Blocked sockpuppet vandal ==

I can't stop you referring to me as a "blocked sockpuppet vandal" but self-evidently it is a tautology. Try to find something constructive to say about Staines, I have now located quoted material on the Altered State book for instance, and this could be used to give "balance" to Staines' biography. --] 08:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:33, 23 November 2015

bye

Rose (goat)

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Rose (goat), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Sean William @ 22:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Tillybagshawe.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tillybagshawe.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sudanese goat marriage incident

I have nominated Sudanese goat marriage incident, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sudanese goat marriage incident (2nd nomination). 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Bstone (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tim Ireland

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tim Ireland. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tim Ireland. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Alex Hilton

I have nominated Alex Hilton, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alex Hilton. 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. Wintonian (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of MSDN Blogs

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

Misplaced Pages is not a directory. Also, this article is not notable, unreferenced, incomplete and unmaintained.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)