Enter and sign in please....

The editor formerly known as "cberlet."

Biased Editing is Unbalancing My Entry with Criticism...Again

Meanwhile, cited material about my work in reputable publications is being deleted and being replaced with syntheses of critical comments from a handful of my critics.

See Chip Berlet

Chip.berlet (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've involved in an editorial dispute. Several editors have responded to you on the article talk page and you've already opened up an RFC to discuss your concerns. An administrator (an editor with additional technical tools) is not required here. Mkdw^talk 17:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator in the past has steped in and helped reframe the discussion for fairness and accuracy because there have been repeated attempts over 5 years to attack my reputation through Wikipedia editing that is biased, incomplete, and often just factually false. Several editors have been permanently blocked because they turned out to be sock puppets for the LaRouchite organization. Other editors have been suspended. This is not the first time this has happened. I know the system here but I also know the history here. Please do not dismiss my concerns with such a glib response. Administrator attention and comments on the talk page has calmed the discussion down quickly in the past.Chip.berlet (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chip, if I may, I would like to clarify for you what it is sysops do here on Wikipedia. Perhaps this will clarify why a sysop is not required to balance and resolve your content dispute, but rather any editor willing to volunteer their time and effort. Let's first look at your initial request, "Biased Editing is Unbalancing My Entry with Criticism...Again. Meanwhile, cited material about my work in reputable publications is being deleted and being replaced with syntheses of critical comments from a handful of my critics.". Now let's look at the tasks in which a sysop can perform. They are as follows as outlined at WP:ADMIN:

• to block user accounts and IP addresses from editing
• to apply page protection to restrict editing of a particular page
• to delete pages with 5,000 or fewer revisions
• to override the title blacklist
• to move a page to any desired title (this is in part a consequence of the last two)
• to edit fully protected pages
• to view and restore deleted pages
• to hide and delete page revisions
• to perform other special actions as listed at Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools

Based upon your initial request, which of these functions in particular will resolve your problem? The answer is they won't. What you need, as you stated, is someone to get the discussion back on track and to moderate the discussion. Fortunately for you, that task can be undertaken by any willing editor. An editor with the sysop tool is granted no more authority over moderating a content dispute as any other editor. We may benefit from having the tools to immediately block disruptive vandals or editors who are edit warring, but if you happen to see any of that activity, you can simply report it at WP:ANI and a sysop will investigate the violation. There are four steps, per the guidelines, in regards to content disputes where things like bias and use of unsuitable references are addressed. They are third opinion, dispute resolution, request for comment, or arbitration. All except for the last are generally moderated by editors. So please, do not mistake my assessment that a "sysop" was not needed here as being ill-informed, but rather substantive in that the help you are looking for can be offered by anyone. I closed the sysop help request since no specific technical use of the tools we possess was requested, and where only a sysop could provide assistance. Mkdw^talk 08:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarifying this. Alas, another rime consuming interaction with the one thing Wilipedia can't seem to deal with: Wikistalking and Wikifanatics. Chip.berlet (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. A while back I created Right-wing politics and violence. Do you think you can help expand it? Or should it be merged somewhere else? Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it begs the question of why there is not a page on Left-wing politics and violence. But I poked around and see there are several articles on "XXXX and Violence" so I think keep it. I currently am on a deadline for a writing assignment, but I can add more material and more cites to other sources soon.Chip.berlet (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But wait! An ideal NPOV solution would be to create a page on Political Violence with sections on Left Wing and Right Wing, and references to the existing pages on religious violence and also terrorism.Chip.berlet (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not overly attached to the stub. If you want to do something more drastic, have at it. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to it in a week.Chip.berlet (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rather thought the Wilcox claims properly stated as opinion would be no problem. One editor,alas, feels that the material violates WP:BLP and that there was a specific consensus against inclusion -- although, as I read it, as a journalist you recognize that opinions cited as opinions are of value to readers. [1] shows him apparently trying to make a cause celebre out of what is, to me, a farily routine edit. He also posted some strong language on my user talk page [2] that there existed a specific consensus to remove any mention of Wilcox, [3] he accused me of not discussing anything on the article talk page, and [4] accuses me of violating WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and unnamed "other policies." I think a word from an actual journalist might make him understand that no journalist wishes to have a totally bowdlerized article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think the issue is that it is a cheap shot from Wilcox who has gone out of his way to say nasty things about me. I do not think your edits overall have helped contribute to an NPOV article. Just my opinion. Probably that is what got a note on your page. It is not hard to find more credible criticisms of my work if you have access to a print library or online scholarly database. Some of the critics are friends or colleagues. I don't mind criticism, but much of the criticism on my entry was by right-wing ideologues with a bone to pick. Hardly NPOV. Thanks for askingChip.berlet (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, there appears to be no doubt that you are a candidate for journalistic sainthood <g>. The interesting bit is that your defenders seem to think the problem is with your criticism of Wilcox! That is what is sourced to the "Washington Times" AFAICT. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The activity is over all sped up. How do you feel it's going so far?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entry is much improved, and I sincerely appreciate the efforts to make it better and more NPOV. I am awaiting interlibrary loan for some books with scholars with criticisms.Chip.berlet (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the comments on the Sandbox page. Sorry for being clueless, I will remember to check it for specifics.Chip.berlet (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a waste to lose any viable material that was there before. I noticed you copied that over there. While you can't edit directly this is not directly. But as I said my ability to verify is limited to the internet. Also I think would be a good idea to take any proposed changes to the talk page.Serialjoepsycho (talk)

It has been pointed out to me that ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions now apply to all biographies of living persons. I've templated the recent edit warriors. You can template any further edit warriors by putting {{subst:Ds/alert|blp}} on the talk page. If the introduction of bias resumes by notified editors, you can then go to arbitration enforcement and request sanctions, such as a topic ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that a person criticized a living person and citing that criticized person's response is not in any way a BLP violation, and your gratuitous templating is not only unwelcome, it is far afield from the ArbCom decisions about BLPs. I suggest you read WP:BLP and note that it is not a "contentious claim about a person" to note that a notable person criticized them. Also note that calling me an "edit warrior" is an abuse of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Further that your acts here are, IMHO, not indicative of collegial editing of an encyclopedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, perhaps you could compare your response posted here above in terms of tone to the comment posted above by Robert McClenon. These might provide some clarity. Chip.berlet (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was at least trying to focus on the content, by reminding all contributors that the content is subject to special scrutiny. Are you, Collect, also focusing on the content, or on the contributors? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I focus on the policy WP:BLP which is what we well ought to do. I do not care who the editors are, nor do I care what the exact material is as long as it complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read biographies of living persons. There was edit warring at Chip Berlet, and there were issues about the article at WP:BLPN. I have not yet reviewed the details of who was edit-warring about what aspect of Chip Berlet's career. If you read the details of the discretionary sanctions template, it is not "gratuitous", and it states that it does not imply blame, but is a reminder to use caution because failure to use caution may result in quick sanctions by uninvolved administrators. The template is a reminder to cut out the edit wars and dial down the rhetoric, and, in my experience, discretionary sanctions templates do work for that purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to examine my "controversial edits" I suggest you note [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] to note some examples of material I find to be real problems on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been admonished for rhetorical excess and have been trying to take a calmer stance. I think the point I take away from the comments by Robert McClenon is that all of us should do the same. I think that is reasonable.Chip.berlet 02:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Wiki standard to which we aspire: Balance Further information: Wikipedia:COATRACK

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.

The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Chip.berlet 02:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did if I recall claim to have written only 2 books. Your Biblio and article have 3 listed. Your biblio lists *(1987) Clouds Blur the Rainbow: The Other Side of New Alliance Party, ISBN 0-915987-03-1, ISBN 978-0-915987-03-0, Political Research Associates (1995) editor of Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash, South End Press, Boston; paperback edition ISBN 0-89608-523-6 (2000) with Matthew N. Lyons, Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, Guilford Press, New York; paperback edition ISBN 1-57230-562-2 So I'm wondering which of these you don't think you are either the writer or that isn't a book. The 1995 book lists you as an editor. The 1987 has an article. It suggest that it is a report.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clouds Blur the Rainbow: The Other Side of New Alliance Party is a bound report. ISBN numbers are issued for bound books and reports. ISSN numbers are issued for serials, even if sporadic. The distinction is important if confusing. I have two books in print: Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash, and Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort (with Matthew N. Lyons).Chip.berlet (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change accordingly. I've also adjusted your biblio.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has a kind of a Frost, the Road not taken feel to it. Confederados were CSA Confederates that emigrated to Brazil after the Civil war was lost. Slavery didn't end there until 1888 if I recall. Brazil is the 7th largest economy. The largest economy in Latin America. Large population. It's somewhat comparable to the US. How the Confederados differ just could be interesting.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fascination, thanks. Chip.berlet (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Far-right politics may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (2000). ''The ideology of the extreme right.'' Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 12-13)</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chip.berlet. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chip.berlet. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Kapya John Kaoma, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster _talk 14:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, International Organization for the Family, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chip.berlet! I'm CASSIOPEIA. I have replied to your question about a submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kapya John Kaoma has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 15:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kapya John Kaoma is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kapya John Kaoma 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. reddogsix (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC) --Note81970 (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)--Note81970 (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)--Note81970 (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)--Note81970 (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Keep It seems we are confused by the order of names here. In most citations, Kapya Kaoma as opposed to Kapya John Kaoma is used; suggesting two different individuals, which not the case. Both are referring to the same individual. Kapya Kaoma is a well known figure. --Note81970 (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)--Note81970 (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)--Note81970 (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)--Note81970 (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP: UNCIVIL before making comments about other editors. Your comment about bias is not only unfounded, it is not appreciated and is contrary to the Wikipedia community guidelines. If you feel I am bias, feel free to report me to the Admin board.

I suggest you focus on the AfD and proving the adequacy of the article references and support. reddogsix (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See response on the main entry page for discussion of Kapya John KaomaChip.berlet (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct all complaints about the entry for Kapya John Kaoma to that talk page and stop harassing me here. Thanks.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Chip.berlet (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

In ten years I have never used a Sockpuppet. During the period I am accused of using a sockpuppet I was attending the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in Philadelphia. I was either in the convention hall or at the Aloft hotel. While I had internet access I had no time or energy to be posting on Wikipedia. The only evidence presented consists of sequential posts, with my posts ending when I took the train to Philadelphia from Boston. I request a reconsideration of this block as it is in error based on insufficient evidence. In addition, I am a professional working journalist with bylines in the New York Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, Des Moines Register, and other publications both popular and scholarly including peer review articles. This block undermines my credibility and integrity in a public manner. I would never risk my reputation by creating a sock puppet when the editing of the page for Kapya John Kaoma was moving forward. I have no motive, and would not risk my credentials by doing something so nonsensical.Thanks for considering this request. Chip.berletChip.berlet (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC) (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've unblocked you per the discussion below. The backdrop of events is a bit Byzantine, but I believe you deserve the benefit of the doubt. Good luck to you. Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think what triggered suspicions was that a new user appeared out of nowhere to support a point you made on an obscure Wikipedia talk page. Do you know who this other person (Chichi Chilufya) is? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NinjaRobotPirate (talk. I haven't a clue. I got up in the morning and went to the conference and then went to dinner, and then back to the hotel and fell asleep. I did answer a few e-mails, but otherwise was not paying attention to Wikipedia. I am almost 70 years old and no longer have the bandwidth. :-). Chip.berlet (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would have interpreted the evidence as canvassing or recruiting offline friends, not sock puppetry. Beyond that, I'm not really sure what to say. Maybe you might ask Bbb23 if he'd unblock you if you agreed to stay away from the AfD? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And now we have Note81970 (talk · contribs · count) (see above comments added by this account), whom I've blocked as a sock. @Chip.berlet, honestly, I don't know what to make of this. Note's comments are almost incoherent and full of signatures despite being only one post. The possiblities of what's going on are not great: (1) these are friends of yours, (2) they are your socks and you're screwing around making them look very different behavior-wise from you, or (3) they have nothing to do with you despite the technical evidence and the obvious interest in the same person. Normally, with another apparent sock introduced in the mix, I would increase your block length, probably to indefinite. Yet, I'm not doing that for the moment as this whole thing feels so damned odd.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative explanation is that some of my many political detractors are creating fake sock puppets to mess with me. It took Arbcom months to figure out that there was a concerted attack on my credibility on Wikipedia by LaRouchites and right-wing cranks. I finally got involved with a closed discussion on this type of harassment with other targeted editors and Jimmy Wales. This is not a new tactic if that is what is happening. Sigh. For the record, I have edited a page on a neonazi group with a neonazi--and we both behaved apprpriately within Wikipedia guidelines.Chip.berlet (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, are they doing so from the same or similar network as you too? SQL^{Query me!} 03:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I on a Verizon FIOS broadband as is much of the Boston area. We live in a house with a single dongle connection to a pole in the street. Our neighborhood alone has scores of connections to Verizon. Beyond that I do not know enough about how the Verizon network operates. I did post on my Facebook page the following:

Chip Berlet - July 25 at 2:06 PM

===ATTENTION WIKIPEDIA EDITORS

===The entry for the heroic human rights activist Kapya John Kaoma has been listed for deletion because he lacks "notability."

So a world-famous Black Christian minister born in Zambia who fights against bigotry and murder of LGBTQ+ people

in Africa is not notable? Please help by adding cites.

...but this is hardly creating sock puppets. I have done it before for Wikipedia pages that needed work and have never been accused of creating sockpuppets. Chip.berlet (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this explains pretty clearly what happened here. It's not a Wikipedia crime to ask for this sort of help. I am inclined to unblock. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 13:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Scripted Violence requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.academia.edu/26640115/Heroes_Know_Which_Villains_to_Kill_How_Coded_Rhetoric_Incites_Scripted_Violence. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. QueerEcofeminist (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Scripted Violence (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kb03 (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scripted Violence 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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chip.berlet. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stochastic terrorism (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Opencooper (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://ahmadsamantho.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/culture-religion-apocalypse-and-middle-east-foreign-policy/. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Kapya Kaoma instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This page was an abandoned draft that has now been declined or rejected as duplicating an existing article. Any details in this draft that are not in the article may be added to the article. This draft should be allowed to be deleted six months after this date.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kapya John Kaoma and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Kapya John Kaoma, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chip.berlet! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chip.berlet. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:International Organization for the Family.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Laura Packard, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chip.berlet. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kapya John Kaoma".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Cheryl Blankenship requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people 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.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.  GILO   A&E⇑  23:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, User:Gilo1969 I had just created the page on Cheryl Blankenship and was entering text when you tagged it for speedy deletion. Adding Black women well known in the US Civil Rights community is so unimpressive to you that you cannot wait for the full text of a page being created in real time to be finished? Seriously?

Hello Chip.berlet -- I've moved it to draftspace for you to work on further: Draft:Cheryl Blankenship Articles on living people must be fully sourced to reliable references from the outset. You might consider working on articles in your own userspace sandbox and publishing them only when completed -- I find it it saves a lot of hassle. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chip.berlet. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cheryl Blankenship".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 17:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was not aware of that procedure. I probably should have been. Chip.berlet (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 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) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Source collective, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster _talk 14:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Source collective requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, society, or group 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.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ... discospinster _talk 14:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Source collective 2 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Source collective 2, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I edit under the name I have used since the late 1960s.

"Chip Berlet"

My birth name is "John Foster Berlet"

My use of the name "Chip Berlet" is not designed in any way to be an attempt at disguising my identity.

I believe the blocking editor acted in haste and failed to do any due diligence.

Please investigate this block.

Thanks for considering this request.

-Chip Berlet

birth name "John Foster Berlet" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet This is openly stated online in the above page^^^

An article you recently created, Source Catalogs, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 15:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you explain more about Source Catalogs? I am not entirely sure what it is and cannot seem to find anything about it on Google. It might very well be not notable, but if you have source, whether it be online or offline, please do so. Thanks. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 15:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I note your comments at Talk:Source_collective. The page was not deleted, but moved to Draftspace (Draft:Source_collective and Draft:Source_collective_2) as it is not yet ready for main-space. Moving pages to Draftspace is well established policy on Wikipedia - you can continue to edit them there and then submit them to Articles for Creation when they are ready. Thanks! ƒirefly ( t · c ) 16:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sorry. I misunderstood. . One of the criticisms was that "Source Catalogs" could not be found on a Google search. Since they were print publications published before the Internet spawned the World Wide Web, that is hardly surprising. Verifiable by a "Google Search?" Sigh.... I am over 70 and remember the days of the telephone-based BBS systems. Mine was called AMNET. :-) See "BBS The Movie" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460402/

Chip.berlet (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chip.berlet. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Political Violence".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Elli (talk | contribs) 02:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ken Tony was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Source collective 2 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Source collective 2, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 15:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chip.berlet. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Source collective, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chip.berlet. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Source Catalogs, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chip.berlet. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Source Catalogs".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding this edit, did you mean a different page number or source? Yes, the author helped edit that book, but the cited content comes from this opinion piece. Is it okay to remove the book and add the correct source? Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 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) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chip.berlet,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Frederick Gage Todd for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Chip.berlet/Frederick Todd (US Attaché) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Chip.berlet/Frederick Todd (US Attaché), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 14:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chip.berlet. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Source collective".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chip.berlet. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Chip.berlet/Frederick Todd (US Attaché), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Z Communications

Per: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Z_Communications&action=history Metro2fsb (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of lone wolf terrorist attacks, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lone wolf terrorist attacks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]