User talk:Kendrick7: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:23, 31 January 2014 editStAnselm (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers160,823 edits Warning: Disruptive editing on Jack T. Chick. (TW)← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:14, 12 January 2025 edit undoJay (talk \| contribs)Administrators37,011 edits Notification: proposed deletion of Western culture (disambiguation).Tags: Twinkle Disambiguation links added
(266 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{not around\|3=16 May 2021}}
	{{Tutnum III}}
			{{Tutnum IV}}
	{\| class="infobox" width="150"		{\| class="infobox" width="150"
	\|- align="center"		\|- align="center"
Line 27:		Line 28:
	\|- align="center"		\|- align="center"
	\| ]		\| ]
			\|- align="center"
			\| ]
			\|- align="center"
			\| ]
			\|- align="center"
			\| ]
	\|}		\|}
	{\| class="messagebox" style="background: SkyBlue;"		{\| class="messagebox" style="background: SkyBlue;"
Line 32:		Line 39:
	\|}		\|}

			== ] of ] ==
	== ], umm, no ==
			]

	I think that you misinterpret WT:LINKLOVE and its purpose. It does not sit alone among the policy and guidance, and looking to circumvent the blacklist is especially not meant to be the purpose of that guidance. — ] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">]</span>'' 13:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

	==Disambiguation link notification for July 10==

	Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] \| ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

	It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

	==Disambiguation link notification for August 2==

	Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] \| ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

	It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

	==AFD: Antisemitism in early Christianity==
	Someone removed the prod tag, so I set up an AFD: ]--] (]) 17:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

	* Just some friendly advice: It doesn't really do any good to try dragging editors into debates over their vote just because they voted ''Keep'' when you want them to vote ''Delete''. People who pass through AfD for a minute or two, see what is there now and vote accordingly--no one likes to get badgered or dragged back for an argument that wastes time and just makes them bitter. It just clogs up the AfD and a lot of editors find such canvassing and badgering to be in poor taste. Place your vote (I notice you haven't voted yet), let other people place theirs. In a week or two, it will sort itself out--whether you argue with them or not. Let the lager yeast settle to the bottom of the beer barrel. OK? --] (]) 05:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

	== Rob Wyda ==

	Nothing you have added meets GNG. We have nothing that says being a judge confers notability, and we have nothing that says military service confers notability. His personal anecdotes also don't make him notable. I could in fact make the case that all his local coverage was simply the result of publicity so he could retain an elected position.

	However, all that aside, in the context of your comment, ] means that we do not even ''consider'' the "grieving family" when looking at articles. Your argument is precisely not what Misplaced Pages's purpose is. Conversely, I'd say a 6.5 year-old article with lousy sources and no expansion is a prime candidate for AfD. If he was so important, where were you back then? Maybe, like me, you never noticed it until it was actually available a little more prominently. ] (]) 05:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

	==Disambiguation link notification for August 10==

	Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] \| ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

			The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
			<blockquote>'''Only passing mentions, no significant coverage that I could find.'''</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	==Guantanamo related articles==

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	Greetings

			Please consider improving the page 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 --> ] (]) 17:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
	The link you added to ] is not an independent reliable source. Someone ported a snapshot of the then current version of this article to wikia. So it is a circular reference pointing back here. Sorry.
			==] nomination of ]==
			]
			{{Quote box\|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>\|width=20%\|align=right}}
			A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a ], at ]. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

			If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink\|Special:Log\|qs=type=delete&page=Christopher+Heinz\|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-repost-notice --><!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="color:DarkGray">...</span> ] <sub>]</sub> 17:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
	I am glad to have other people interested in working on the Guantanamo material. Realistically that work has to take into account the many {{tl\|afd}} on similar articles.

			==Disambiguation link notification for September 27==
	I don't know if I have introduced myself. I started almost all the articles on Guantanamo captives -- about 550 articles in the end. I started them mainly in 2006, when, frankly, the wikipedia's inclusion criteria was looser. So, they met the criteria, when I drafted them. There are about 2 dozen strong critics of my efforts out there, some of whom will say I have been a serial creator of articles that don't compliy with ] and other policies. I see that criticism as very unfair, as, without regard to whether the articles measure up to todays's standards, they measured up to the standards current when I started them.

			An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
	In 2009 a contributor with a lot of energy came along, and devoted several thousand hours to the articles on this material. This should have been a great relief to me, as keeping those articles up those hundreds of articles to the current standards, as those standards grew more stringent, was going to be thousands of hours or work. Sadly, that person proved very hostile, and took pleasure in his success at impeding my every effort.
			:]<!-- ( \| )-->
			::added a link pointing to ]
			:]<!-- ( \| )-->
			::added a link pointing to ]

			(].) --] (]) 10:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
	I think there are a couple of people interested in improving the coverage of this material. Assuming you are one of those people, can we discuss how best to do this within the time we have available to work on it?
	Could we:
	# Discuss how improved articles should look? I am not happy with the style I used in 2006.
	# Discuss which deleted or redirected articles would be the strongest candidates to restore to full article status?
	There is a moribund wikiproject for terrorism. Perhaps this would be the best place to discuss this.

			== Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion ==
	Cheers! ] (]) 18:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

			] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ].The discussion is about the topic ].<!--Template:NPOVN-notice--> Thank you. ] <small>(please ] on reply)</small> 01:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
	: At ] I have information that can be plugged into restored articles on any captive who was still in custody back in 2008. Challengers to covering Guantanamo material started to define the intelligence summaries prepared by OARDEC as "primary sources". I still don't agree with this interpretation, as they were prepared by a whole separate agency than the intelligence agencies that interrogated the captives, or looked at the physical evidence. I made my case for the interpretation that, as compilations and summaries of the work of individual at other agencies those summaries were, by definition, secondary sources. I made my best case at the reliable sources noticeboard, and that argument was not accepted. So ] is based on a 99 page academic paper where scholars did their analysis of the meaning of the allegations -- that paper is unquestionably a "secondary source".
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ] 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.
	: As per above the question now is how best to use it in a way that satisfies everyone -- including those who have challenged these articles.

			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.<!-- Template:afd notice --> ] (]) 04:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
	: Cheers! ] (]) 19:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

			== ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message ==
	== August 2013 ==
	] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. Your edits appear to be ] and have been ] or removed.
	* If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ].
	* If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ].
	Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's ], and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive2 --> ]] (]) 04:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

			<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
	:I have found a Oxford University Press work that identifies Jack Chick as being anti-Catholic. StAnselm doesn't have a leg to stand on.--] (]) 16:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
			<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2020\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==
	Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you.

			If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
	<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''one week''' for disruptive editing, including edit warring at ] and multiple categories; tendentious editing; and harassing other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx\|" code. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first.  ] (]) 15:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block -->
			</td></tr>
			</table>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/01&oldid=990307860 -->
			== ] of ] ==
			]

			The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	== Since you asked... ==
			<blockquote>'''Does not meet ]'''</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	Since you asked "What did I ever do to you?" - the comment "" may have something to do with it. I appreciated your apology , but I thought it was a bit rich reverting on the basis that I hadn't sufficiently responded to the discussion on ]. To make these sorts of edits immediately after coming out of a block is rather appalling. ]] (]) 04:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	== Substing templates ==

			Please consider improving the page 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 --> ] (]) 00:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
	Hi! Just wanted to remind you that when you use a welcome template on someone's talkpage, that you should always ] the template. (For example, you should use<nowiki>{{subst:welcome}}</nowiki> rather than <nowiki>{{welcome}}</nowiki>.) Cheers, <small>— Preceding <span style="color:#0645AD;">''signed''</span> comment added by ] (] • ])</small> 00:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
			== ] of ] ==
	== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			]
	<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	The article will be discussed at ] 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.
			<blockquote>'''Does not meet ] as notability is not inherited from author.'''</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	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.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] <small>(])</small> 16:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
	<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			Please consider improving the page 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 --> ] (]) 00:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
	The article will be discussed at ] 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.

			== "Misplaced Pages:FAKENEWS" listed at ] ==
	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.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 13:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
			]
			A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> —] (] '''·''' ]) 18:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

			== ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message ==
	==Disambiguation link notification for December 9==

			<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
	Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] \| ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>
			<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2021\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

			If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
	== concern trolling ==
			</td></tr>
	Please do not undo legitimate and consensus based edits, and please especially do not attempt to conceal your actions by calling such edits removal of concern trolling : eg there was a broad-based consensus for this approach, and no-one has demonstrated that the broad community feels differently - and calling something like this 'trolling' is a misrepresentation and I consider it disruptive. If you really don't like that previous consensus , you're not alone, but the pathway has been laid out for you several times.--] (]) 12:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
			</table>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1056562944 -->
			== "New Catechism" listed at ] ==
			]
			An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 01:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ] 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.
	==] stalking==
	3 people have accused this user of stalking in the recent past. Since this is the case, and since this appears to be a habit with this user, do you think its a good idea for any of us 3 to seek further action against him? ] ] 23:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
	== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
	<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			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.
	The article will be discussed at ] 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.
			<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ]<sup><small style="font-size:80%;">(])</small></sup> 02:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
			== "Heavies" listed at ] ==
			]
			An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 03:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

			== ] of ] ==
	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.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 18:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
			]

			The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	== Protection status on ] ==
			<blockquote>'''Sources do not establish ] is met'''</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	It was not me who initiated the semi-protect. I merely reverted back to the original status after pending changes trial ended. ]] 20:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
	: Why should you ask me when it wasn't me who imposed it in the first place? The ball isn't on my court (and never was) ]] 23:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	== Anti-Catholicism category and Jack Chick ==

			Please consider improving the page 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 -->
	Kendrick7, I share your consternation about not putting Chick in the Anti-Catholic category. Is water wet? Is Hitler an antisemite? Is Jack Chick anti-Catholic? I think the other editors are trying to refer you to this discussion from two years ago: . If you haven't read it through yet, I think you ought to. I've been analyzing it and have some observations I will share with you. --] (]) 22:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

			'''<span style="color: red;">This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual page for details.</span>''' Thanks, ] (]) 09:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
	== ==
			== "]" listed at ] ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11#According to John}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 07:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
			== "]" listed at ] ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 15#The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World and JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 00:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
			== "]" listed at ] ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2#Hamas militants}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 23:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ''']''' 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.
	Here are my comments on the CfD:

			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.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 20:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
	1) The proposer, Roscelese, did not propose banning the adding of individuals, organizations, media, etc. from the bias categories. Her proposal simply asked for consensus on making the bias categories ''uniform'' by taking a "unified approach" to them.
			== "]" listed at ] ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 28#Job creators}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 21:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

			== ] of ] ==
	2) Roscelese herself does not !vote in favor of not listing "individuals, orgs, etc.".
			]

			The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	3) Eighteen editors expressed an opinion on the "unified approach" proposal: Eleven supporting—Roscelese, CarolMooreDC, Good Ol'factory, dmcq, Kaldari, Dezidor, Joe Decker, Nick Levinson, Moni3, Geometry guy and SandyGeorgia; Seven opposing—Avi, Debresser, Rainbowofpeace, Gnangarra, Jayjg, Jack Cox and Ricardianman.
			<blockquote>'''Fails ]. No extensive coverage, google news yields only 2 sources.'''</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	4) Of the eleven supporting !votes, ''six'' also supported banning individuals, orgs, etc., from the bias categories: CaroleMooreDC, Good Ol'factory, and Dezidor ''explicitly'', and Nick Levinson, Moni3, and SandyGeorgia by recommending that the bias categories be ''deleted'' entirely. (Of the seven oppose !votes, none support banning individuals & orgs, etc.)

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	5) (The support !vote of dmcq is ambiguous: he says he approves of banning individuals, but appreciates having a "category of people convicted of anti-homosexual crimes".)

			Please consider improving the page 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 -->
	6) If you include the !vote of dmcq, there are ''seven'' !votes that support not naming individuals, orgs, etc., in bias categories.

			'''<span style="color: red;">This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual page for details.</span>''' Thanks, ] (]) 10:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
	7) Seven divided by eighteen is 39%, not even a simple majority of the !vote.

			==] nomination of ]==
	8) The finding by the closer, Timrollpickering, of "Consensus for a unified approach to these categories" is supportable—of eighteen !votes, eleven supported a "unified approach" (consistency is a good thing, right?).
			]
			{{Quote box\|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>\|width=20%\|align=right}}
			A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not ] how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the ], such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about ].

			If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink\|Special:Log\|qs=type=delete&page=Hurt+Hardy\|deleting administrator}}. <!-- Template:Db-notability-notice --> ] (]) 23:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
	9) The finding by the closer, Timrollpickering, of "most support to ban individuals & organisations", is manifestly incorrect and false—only six (or seven) out of eighteen editors expressed such support.
			== ] of ] ==
			]

			The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	10) Any action taken on the basis of this manifestly erroneous claim of consensus (i.e. "most support to ban individuals & organisations") is surely ''invalid''.
			<blockquote>'''Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:CRIME'''</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	11) In addition, the closing admin had no warrant to make a determination on anything but the question posed by Roscelese: ''whether'' to take a unified approach to bias categories (and not on ''how'' to make the bias categories uniform). --] (]) 01:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
	::it's an interesting analysis but it's also water long under the bridge, and current practice has aligned (as well as the fact that participants did not seem to dispute the closure at the time.) consensus can change, so I suggest, as I have for months, that you work on a neutrally worded RFC and get a new consensus established. For example, perhaps anti-religion cats can be treated differently? And is there a nazi-exceptionalism? as no-one would dare remove Hitler from the antisemitism category.--] (]) 16:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::Thanks for jumping in here, Obiwan; I noticed that you were one of the players on this issue. Now that ''you '''know''' there was no consensus on individuals'' and organizations, please begin removing the related "instructions" language from the tops of the bias category pages. Thanks! PS: Current practice has ''not'' aligned—there are still many, many people and organizations listed in bias categories. --] (]) 15:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::I strongly suggest against that. The consensus was as written by the admin; even though many did not explicitly state it, the intent in voting "support unified approach" was in almost all cases to support removal of people and organizations, and many other CFDs, again and again, have deleted categories that so label people (eg. Anti-semitic people, racist organizations, etc). I can point to at least a dozen other cats that have been deleted. This is a long-standing consensus to not have these sorts of categories, and the fact that some people have filtered in that shouldn't be there just means people haven't done the cleanup. Rather than go around changing cats, the proper course of action is a new RFC. I'd be happy to help draft it, just start a draft somewhere, but begin with - what is the question? FWIW, I re-read that discussion, and I think the close was correct. It's not just about numbers, it's also about strength of argument, and I think the arguments to keep people and orgs out were stronger.--] (]) 16:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::{{ping\|Timrollpickering}} so he can weigh in with thoughts.--] (]) 16:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::That there was consensus for a "unified approach" is correct—that was the question being decided. That there was a consensus about "individuals & orgs, etc" is incorrect on two counts: 1) that wasn't the question the proposer asked to be decided, and 2) six or seven out of eighteen !votes does not equate to "most support to ban individuals & organisations". So, in my opinion, Timrollpickering improperly found consensus (7/18!) on a question that wasn't even proposed. (I don't believe he used "strength of argument" to justify his conclusions.) --] (]) 17:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	::::::It's always interesting when the sudden voices of support for controversial actions come from IPs... I've addressed this matter more than once when Kendrick's brought it up and don't intend to keep on doing so in every new forum it's raised in so I'll just address the specific new points raised and the way forward.
	::::::A conformity nomination is by definition seeking to set a common standard not just seeking agreement that there should be one - that's how every other conformity nomination I've been involved with at CFD, whether as nominator, commenter or closer, has gone. That particular discussion's nomination explicitly ends with "You've got to pick one standard or another." so the claim the discussion had no power to make that decision is false. Discussions are not votes but discussions and do take in wider policies and trends.
	::::::Now not everyone may be happy with the outcome. But there are straightforward ways to handle it. This is '''not''' by having one or two individuals trying to rewrite the determined outcome and impose their preferred one, as that just leads to the anarchic edit warring that consensus decisions seek to avoid. Rather either the CFD can be taken to review (though at three years' distance it's invariably accumulated the additional weight of little challenged practice) or a new discussion can be initiated to see if consensus has changed since then. I find it telling that in all the months since Kendrick first raised this there has been no attempt to either review or rediscuss the consensus, just attempts to bypass it. ] (]) 19:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::I don't believe that Roscelese (the nominator), in making the comment "You've got to pick one standard or another", was directing you, Timroll, to ''personally'' decide what that standard would be (lol). If the CfD procedure is as loosey-goosey as you describe, it needs to be tightened up. Isn't it difficult enough to determine consensus when the question discussed is clearly framed? Yet, if I understand you, it is routine to determine consensus on questions that haven't even been asked! (IMHO, admins should only determine consensus on the specific question posed.) I understand Kendrick7's frustration—he has a bigot and a category to put him in but he's prevented because someone decided that you cannot put bigots in the bigotry category. '''Frustration is not, however, an excuse for disruption, and I hope Kendrick7 avails himself of the avenues for redress that you have indicated.''' As regards the accumulated "additional weight of little challenged practice", Roscelese said: "the result of the discussion is being completely disregarded for some categories ... and enforced for others, leaving us in exactly the same position in which we began", so, maybe it's time for a review and re-think. --] (]) 00:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC) '''Bolding added.''' --] (]) 17:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::71, your critiques of Tim's closing are best left for a deletion review... but, we aren't going to do one, because it happened so long ago there's no point rehashing a 3 year old discussion - it would make a ton more sense to just start a new discussion. Secondly, Kendrick's problem of "I have a bigot and I need to categorize him" is at the root of the problem, because at the time of the CFD, it was not acceptable to categorize people as homophobes but it was perfectly fine to call them anti-semites - so some bigots were more equal than others. It's also problematic to use categories to label people in that way, because it's inherently subjective, and don't say "we go by sources", as sources can disagree, and it's still a question of degree. Is Tutu an anti-semite in the same way Hitler was? Obviously not, but what's the threshold? It's much easier to deal with different sources' interpretations of bigotry in the article text, vs a category which is all-or-nothing, black or white, in or out. As to your other point, it's not surprising that the result is disregarded, anyone can add to a category, and it's hard to monitor membership in a category - you have to watch the recent changes in the category (and that only shows you who has been added, it doesn't show who has been removed). However, when I've cleaned up such cats in the past, there hasn't been much resistance. Nonetheless, I have maintained, in every conversation on this issue, that there would be no problem in doing a new RFC, especially now it's 3 years later - it remains for those who are unhappy with the status quo to put such an RFC together, and so far no-one has felt it worth their while. Maybe you will prove me wrong. You'll also need to respect the consensus that arises from that, and not continue a 1-man-war against the consensus established as kendrick has been doing.--] (]) 04:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::No, I won't be the one to prove you wrong—I only got interested because I understand "where Kendrick is coming from". I had never read a CfD before this one and hadn't paid much attention to Categories; but thanks to your and Timroll's responses, I now know a lot more about how it works. You'll agree with me that it's fortunate that what I've learned convinces me to stay further away from Category issues than I had before (lol). Maybe Kendrick and Roscelese will get together and prove you wrong. Anyway, thanks to you and Timrollpickering for your thoughtful responses. --] (]) 17:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::Aha. Well, CFD and categories is a rather arcane area of[REDACTED] with its own set of rules. For example, ] is actually a good argument for categories, since consistency in the tree is appreciated, and many things which are eminently sourceable and verifiably true are nonetheless not acceptable as categories - the purpose is to provide navigation and grouping of like topics, while managing maintainability. This is why the vast majority of potential category intersections and "true statements about object X" do not exist as categories. There are infinitely many more things that are true than those which we accept as categories, and the black/white and unsourced nature of category membership (and difficulty in monitoring same) makes them tricky. Finally, if that's the only CFD you've read, don't judge CFD on that alone - that was a very special CFD, and the outcome was different than the majority of CFDs, which normally just say "keep" or "delete" or "merge" - in this case, the question was about really about contents, and it was brought to CFD (the discussion could have been held elsewhere, and if we do it again, I suggest we do hold the discussion outside of CFD, but its not a big deal either way). In any case, that particular discussion is in no way representative of standard CFDs - normally extremely problematic categories are simply deleted, but in this case we can't just delete "Racism" as a category, we just have to patrol it instead.--] (]) 18:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
	===Is the Pope Catholic?===
	I haven't read the whole discussion above yet, but Anon 71 is putting words into my mouth. My issue isn't with ] at all. My issue is with equating holding a ] belief with bigotry. "Anti-" has a long standing theological meaning; e.g. anti-Marcionism is simply a theology which rejects ].

			Please consider improving the page 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 --> ] (]) 01:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
	A better example might be ]. ] is a more or less forgotten theology now, but was a huge deal a millennium and a half ago. Which means it didn't rank high enough on anyone's radar to actually get thrown in with this CFD.
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ''']''' 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.
	Now, anti-Gnosticism surely got people killed. But is it ''bigotry''? Of course not. Just because some people kill in the name of an idea doesn't make anyone holding that idea an evil person. After all ] probably killed more people in the ] than were even shuffling around the whole Mediterranean basin back then. Would anyone blanch at the project putting ] or, later, ] in ]? Again, of course not.

			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.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
	And especially with ancient theology, who got there first is almost an accident of history. In some parallel universe where ] actually taught the opposite as he did over here, and a movement came along opposing this real life ''Anti-Marcion'' (I suppose we'd have to call them anti-anti-Marcionites), would the opposite side then suddenly become the "bigots"? Are we really just cheerleaders for whomever got there first?
			== "]" listed at ] ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 15#How the sausage gets made}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
			==] nomination of ]==
			]

			A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Misplaced Pages having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.
	And it gets worse! Because had ] made the list, then we couldn't include any ] anti-Gnostic person or organisation in the category. But, of course, ] still regards Gnosticism as a ]. So everyone who is Catholic -- at least especially the higher ups you should have to admit -- is an anti-Gnostic. So we'd have to purge those.

			If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. <!-- Template:Db-redundantimage-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> --]<sup>«¦]¦»</sup> 14:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	But it's only a ] from that reasoning to say we can't even include anyone in ]. The Catholic faith is ''decidedly'' opposed to the Gnostic faith.
			== ] of ] ==
			]

			The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	Which means ]. Bravo. ''Yay, a true victory for 'conformity'!''
			<blockquote>'''] situation. The album may be hatnoted from the primary topic page.'''</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	If you think that's just irrelevant speculation, read from paragraph 3 again with the words "Central Europe" in place of "Mediterranean basin" and "]" in place of the word "Gnostic" and notice the argument still holds, perhaps ].

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	But, OK. My next step is to re-list the anti-Theology categories in a new ]. I'm busy in real life, but it will come around soon. My only real fear is that the community won't appreciate theology as much as I do! -- ]<sup>]</sup> 04:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
	::you seem to be suggesting that anti-Catholicism is closer to anti-communism than it is to anti-semitism. In practice we seem to have drawn the line there - it is acceptable to label people as anti-communist or anti-fascist, likely because those labels themselves were embraced by those who held them and are not considered pejorative, while calling someone anti-Muslim or anti-catholic or anti-Semitic is seen as pejorative and most who held such views would not so label themselves. Id suggest you start a discuss at the bias WikiProject to formulate a new neutral rFC and it is possible you could make the case that certain anti-religion cats should be treated differently and that things like {{cl\|Anti-Catholic organizations}} should be kept and expanded.--] (]) 16:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::. I'd actually suggest ] and ] are closer to ] than they are to ]. In practice, we ''have not'' drawn the line there, hence the current existence, for now, of {{cl\|Anti-Catholic organizations}}. You are amongst those running around trying to draw these new lines and create new practices. ''Oh, that evil ], why does it hate matter so?''
	:::But thanks for the invite to ] where some cabal of editors are probably hippy-dippy paranoid about "bias". If only because reminds my of ] ;-) -- ]<sup>]</sup> 04:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

			Please consider improving the page 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 --> <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">]</span><span style="font-size:115%">]</span> 15:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
	== January 2014 ==
	] Please stop your ], as you did at ]. Your edits have been ] or removed.
	* If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ].
	* If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ].
	Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being ]. <!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 --> ]] (]) 04:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:14, 12 January 2025

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Kendrick7 has not edited Misplaced Pages since 16 May 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

This editor is a **Tutnum of the Encyclopedia** and is entitled to display this **Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, and Chewed Broken Pencil**.

Archive
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Proposed deletion of Edward Adam

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

Only passing mentions, no significant coverage that I could find.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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. Kj cheetham (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Christopher Heinz

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Christopher Heinz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christopher Heinz. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ... discospinster _talk 17:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Christopher Heinz

added a link pointing to Pittsburg

Henry J. Heinz

added a link pointing to Birmingham, Pennsylvania

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is White supremacy and the Proud Boys.The discussion is about the topic Proud Boys. Thank you. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Brighteon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brighteon is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brighteon 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. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of COBRA (Joseph R. Rosenberger novel series)

The article COBRA (Joseph R. Rosenberger novel series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:NBOOK

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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.

Proposed deletion of COBRA (Timothy Zahn novel series)

The article COBRA (Timothy Zahn novel series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:NBOOK as notability is not inherited from author.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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.

"Misplaced Pages:FAKENEWS" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Misplaced Pages:FAKENEWS. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 23#Misplaced Pages:FAKENEWS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"New Catechism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect New Catechism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#New Catechism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Rosemont Seneca Partners for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rosemont Seneca Partners is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rosemont Seneca Partners 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.

AlexEng 02:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

"Heavies" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Heavies and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#Heavies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Daniel Tzvetkoff

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

Sources do not establish WP:BIO is met

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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.

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) 09:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

"According to John" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect According to John has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 11 § According to John until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World and JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World and JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 15 § The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World and JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy until a consensus is reached. Grorp (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"Hamas militants" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hamas militants has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § Hamas militants until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Six phases of a big project for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Six phases of a big project is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Six phases of a big project 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.

Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

"Job creators" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Job creators has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 28 § Job creators until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Loïc Jean-Albert

The article Loïc Jean-Albert has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BIO. No extensive coverage, google news yields only 2 sources.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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.

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) 10:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hurt Hardy

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Hurt Hardy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

Proposed deletion of Hurt Hardy

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

Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:CRIME

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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.

Nomination of Hurt Hardy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hurt Hardy is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hurt Hardy 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.

GuyBanks (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

"How the sausage gets made" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect How the sausage gets made has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 15 § How the sausage gets made until a consensus is reached. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Palestine peace not apartheid.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Palestine peace not apartheid.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Misplaced Pages having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

Proposed deletion of Western culture (disambiguation)

The article Western culture (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:ONEOTHER situation. The album may be hatnoted from the primary topic page.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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.

Categories: