This user is working himself to death at college, and probably won't be editing actively, except maybe on breaks, for the foreseeable future.

Talk Page Archives
01 Perm. link 01	11 Perm. link 11
02 Perm. link 02	12 Perm. link 12
03 Perm. link 03	13 Perm. link 13
04 Perm. link 04	14 Perm. link 14
05 Perm. link 05	15 Perm. link 15
06 Perm. link 06	16 Perm. link 16
07 Perm. link 07	17 Perm. link 17
08 Perm. link 08
09 Perm. link 09
10 Perm. link 10

This page is archived every 25 topics, by the removal of the oldest 25 topics.

Hi, you participated in a deletion request at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Wikipe-tan lolicon (2007-01-04). The same files are now being considered for undeletion at commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:LoliWikipetan.jpg. If you're still around we'd appreciate your opinion and feedback. Thanks! Dcoetzee 23:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Highschool of the Dead, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 14:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for taking notice. By the looks of it, that is a rogue IP used by one experienced blocked/banned user (I could guess who it is, but I don't want to give him the time of day), who known I watchlisted the page and trying to get my attention in the most pathetic way. I think he is gaming the system by posting an insanely crude and inane message then and now (for instance, this one), waiting for the IP to go stale (or changing it), then coming up with tiny reposts to let us know he's still around. If I guessed right about the identity of the user, so I tend to look at this, and then overlook it, in the light of that fact. Dahn (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various postings by block-evading IP user removed. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Erachima. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my stubbornness. I hope we can get along as friends from now on.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert your removal of NWA.Rep's joke banner from his talkpage, as I have already reverted the same edit by Bartsa. But I'm really sorry to see that you think it necessary to kick a guy who is so completely down. The joke isn't that funny, but it's not disruptive by any definition. Removing such harmless things from userpages, which users traditionally have wide latitude to manage themselves, raises the temperature and the mutual hostility in the community, and that is in the long run far more hurtful to the encyclopedia than a silly joke or two (this one wastes editors' time to the tune of what, three seconds?). And no, he can't "fight his own battles", as he has scrambled his password. His one point of pride right now is to retain the banner, which has been there for a long time. I confess I don't think it an important thing in itself, but I can understand how somebody can get very upset about the deletion of his userpage, and try to retain at least this last trace of his personal choice on Wikipedia. Please see the discussion on my talkpage.[1] Bishonen | talk 22:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Anime and manga by demographic, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed between 12-14 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the initial messages I sent out went to only WikiProject members and users that had over 15 reviews). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. Now, one of the most important criteria is that you have at least 15 independent reviews. If you are reading this, you are likely 3 (or less) reviews short, so if you review another couple nominations, you can become a recruiter! If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". NOTE: If you are interested in becoming a recruiter but do not meet the 15 review requirement, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters and put your status as "Not Available" until you have reviewed enough nominations. Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having no prior interactions, you have made a string of personal attacks and you assume bad faith. Please stop that realize that I am not alone in my disagreement with MOSAM. And note that I didn't even start the discussion or go to the policy fact itself. I have worked tirelessly to improve A&M topics and I've got many articles to GA levels in the last month alone. Your characterization of me as malicious and with a "vendetta" is very rude and I ask you retract your statements and assume good faith. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off my page. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant diff. Also, talk pages are for public communication with editors. So, in short, no, not if there's something that needs to be discussed with you. --erachima talk 15:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. You've already been warned. This is your final warning. Stop making personal attacks on me. I don't even know you! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that I have not personally attacked you, and you are simply abusing the warning process to try to scare people you don't like into shutting up. --erachima talk 21:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, good work. Thx. 88.104.27.75 (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot revert out pages like that, especially during a discussion. Multiple editor OWN and localconsensus does not make your actions correct. Revert your removal and let the process continue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attack has been removed. Casting aspersions is a violation of NPA. Even your final statement is inaccurate because of CWW and condescending. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your concerns (and misconceptions). --Niemti (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bleach (anime) 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/Bleach (anime) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a personal attack and clearly inappropriate. I have reverted it. Your preceding comment isn't much better. You may want to redact parts of that yourself. I fully understand that there are longstanding disagreements with ChrisGualtieri about various anime- and manga-related articles, but personal attacks of this type only poison the well and do not help at all, least of all yourself. Huon (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, obviously, disagree that it was unwarranted or I wouldn't have said it. The division between a standard disagreement and a WP:TEND case is that it's the editor, not just the editing, that has become the problem. --erachima talk 04:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop baiting and making more bad faith and/or insulting remarks at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Anime-_and_manga-related_articles#Refocusing_discussion. You were warned about your comments and I find your incivil comments to be disruptive. It serves only to foster more problems. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove your post where you twist my words and reinsert it under the false guise of "vandalism".[2] I removed my own post because you were likely to make it into NPA when I am tired of these trolls. WP:DENY all trolls is best. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing/responding to your posts anymore. Have someone message me when you need to interact with me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this sort of thing is at all helpful, especially as the user in question is blocked and can't say anything in protest. I'd also suggest that it's probably fairly impolite to modify another's signature, even with a (presumably intended to be) humorous edit summery, and quite likely to be outside policy too. Perhaps you'd like to go back and revert yourself? Thank you, Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy message I name dropped you.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I ask then ? Thanks, Sir Lothar (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for answer, Sir Lothar (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in the above AFD, as per the close I have opened up a proper merge discussion at Talk:Dragon Ball and you are welcome to participate.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bleach (anime) 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/Bleach (anime) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Ryulong (琉竜) 16:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shinigami in Bleach, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. TTN (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate if you can add those issues for this article and Fix the problem.(Academiava User:Ramya20 is representing murder side and remove valuable issues on this article.--Academiava (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alwis, who was 42, was dragged from his house and murdered on the night of July 31, 1989. The murder has been blamed on the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna^[1],but nirmala de Alwis is proved wrote a book murder was handled by Hudson Samarasinghe..^[2][3]

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		For defending the right of Wikipedia to fight censorship within its policies, customs and respect for BLP subjects. Keep your voice up! cyclopiaspeak! 00:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. --erachima talk 13:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for the GA over at The Crab with the Golden Claws! Much appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Did you have time to go through the AFDs and DRVs as I requested? Or are you making pronouncements on the life of a horse having not examined the animal? Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Erachima. It's an impressive work; a B, for sure. A matter of preference but I'd go with {{gnr}} for citations of the manga itself. It's cleaner, visually-wise, in my opinion. Instead of citing everytime "Kubo, Tite (2000). Zombie Powder vol. 01. Shueisha. pp. XX. ISBN 4-08-872828-9," it's okay to have the complete citation once and then only use the chapter. {{rp}} is also a good option. The difference is that you cite the chapter with gnr and the page with rp. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your idea at WT:GAN and I like it. Though I was wondering about a collaboration on something. I'm not to picky on the topic or area, but I think it'd be good to work together on an article. I've always found that to be a fun way to get to know each other better. Would you want to do that? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, erachima. I actually edit-conflicted your close of the Historicity of Jesus charlie foxtrot on ANI with a close of my own, which would've said more or less the same thing. Thanks for closing it; that thread was way off, as far as venue. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for closing. The basic problem appears to be well-meaning but very bad advice at WP:DRN. The issues were taken to WP:DRN, where the volunteer editor said that the issues involved both content and conduct (which was correct), and said to take the content issues to requests for mediation and the conduct issues to WP:ANI. The latter was well-meaning but bad advice, because, although there are conduct issues, none of the contentious editors have put together diffs or made a specific case. (Also, it isn't, in my opinion, a good case for formal mediation, but that is another question.) There are conduct issues, but they aren't formulated for admin action yet. (I don't think that they will ever be dealt with at WP:ANI anyway. I have the feeling that the case will eventually go to arbitration, but that is my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The seven days from the on hold on the 11 of August is not today, it is tomorrow. I have been away and was hoping to deal with this today.--SabreBD (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I responded to your most recent layout change on the talk page. I was wondering if you could at least partially revert the part of your edit that lumps the anime in with other media until we can establish a full consensus on the talk page? Thanks. Artichoker^[talk] 04:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bleach (manga)

added a link pointing to Jason Thompson

Zombiepowder.

added a link pointing to Jason Thompson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I got an "on hold" notifications for the GA review. Now that Crisco inserted the revised Lead, I think we should be all set to continue the review? Sorry things are a bit slow due to following COI procedure + there is a long history of debate on the page, but I think it has died down. CorporateM (Talk) 14:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Erachima, there's a message for you at Talk:Mordin Solus/GA1, when you have a moment czar ♔ 01:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Czar, Erachima's last edit on Wikipedia was back on August 19. If there's no response soon, you may want to find a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset, wasn't my review—was just checking in  czar ♔ 02:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erachima, the same applies to your review of Talk:Yelp/GA1, which you started on August 15, and where the issues were addressed by CorporateM later the same day. There have been significant edits since then, too. If you're around, it would really help for you to post whether you intend to continue with these reviews; otherwise, we may have to find someone else. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zombiepowder. you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Zombiepowder. you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Zombiepowder. for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Zombiepowder. you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zombiepowder. for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Erachima. 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]

Thanks for uploading File:Vinland Saga art comparison.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Erachima. 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]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Ƒ/8 and be there; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ——SerialNumber54129 09:05, 9 July 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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cicely Mary Barker has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Tale of Mrs. Tittlemouse has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Robinson (gardener) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Bleach season 1 for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. While I recognize you've been inactive for a while, in case you return, your input would be appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]