I've blocked AOluwatoyin a couple of times. I don't quite understand what else you want here. I told you that if you wanted help, just ask me directly on my talk page. I would recommend toning down your message here. You aren't helping your cause any with it. It comes off as hostile. And reverting others comments like you say you are going to is probably going to get you blocked. Again, it doesn't help you any. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email. --Woohookitty^(meow) 04:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LGagnon, I appreciate your concern with keeping wikipedia npov. However, your editing of the Ayn Rand article seems to indicate a strong negative bias. Some of your edits and concerns I agree with, despite my being an Objectivist, and therefore likely to have a favorable view of Ayn Rand. I think good criticism and controversy inforamtion shold be included. I think many of your edits though are very npov. I suggest you take a step back and think about this before proceeding.Ethan a dawe 21:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Ethan Dawe[reply]

What are your thoughts on "Lay Philosopher" versus "Non-Academic Philosopher?" Someone is suggesting this in regards Rand and others? Ethan a dawe 21:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 21:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any more anything from AOluwatoyin and I am going to block him indefinitely. Honestly, the legal threats should've gotten him blocked indefinitely but someone beat me to it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks like his comments on Jimbo's talk page were reverted. --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I do apologize for not being up on this more. I've been hit by more yahoos than usual lately, including someone who said that they "liked me" and who turned out to be a sockpuppet. Not making excuses. But not enough hours in the day to stop everyone. :) --Woohookitty^(meow) 12:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this and this. Good grief. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to readers: Please be aware that the two examples accessible by the links above were not written by the same individual but by two different editors. --142.161.184.39 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a moot point since you admitted on my user page that you are the same person who added to the box first posted by wolfstar. As we say in Wisconsin, it's the same difference. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, A writes a piece about C the contents of which C insists are libellous. B indicates only that the piece ought to have been published because it speaks the truth. Is B guilty of libel? Of course not, he didn't write the piece in the first place. A murders C. B testifies that C was a bastard and "deserved it". Did B murder C? Of Course not. Are you starting to see the difference now? I hope so because clearly it's not the "same difference". Just out of curiousity is this why you are called Cheeseheads? --209.115.235.79 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be condescending. My point was that you obviously agreed with it. So you were basically agreeing with a sockpuppet who has been blocked 7 or 8 times. It doesn't exactly speak highly of you. So what's the difference really? --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I blocked AOluwatoyin indefinitely due to sockpuppet use. If anything else, it makes blocking these socks easier. --Woohookitty^(meow) 02:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I noticed that you changed the Objectivism article to state that most academics rejected it, I started a topic on the talk page to discus this point.--Dylan Lake 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, because the "Writing style" and "Fandom" sections of Chuck Palahniuk are not refed and are possibly OR, I've listed it at WP:FAR. Thanks, Mikker ^(...) 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, do you think the article is good enough now for a Featured Article nomination?--CyberGhostface 15:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You may wish to voice your opinion/vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. Yours, Smeelgova 07:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • On a related issue, What is your opinion regarding the "non-compliant" tag that User:Jossi placed on the article Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous ? Yours, Smeelgova 07:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I have updated the Cults in Our Midst article entry. Take a look and let me know what you think, on the article's talk page. Yours, Smeelgova 23:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book). Yours, Smeelgova 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I present to you this award for your hard work on the Randall Flagg article. CyberGhostface 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Chuck Palahniuk (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stephen King short stories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --CyberGhostface 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I make spoiler redirects for Walter's and Marten's redirect pages? Someone new to the DT series might look up Marten or Walter and find out he's Flagg before they get to that part.--CyberGhostface 22:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put Category:Critics of Objectivism on CfD, but I think I should've told you first as you created it. I did this mostly for consistency with the decision on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 13#Category:Critics of Islam.--T. Anthony 04:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trampton 06:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You might want to look at what's going on at Ayn Rand Institute. ThAtSo 16:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Zinn paragraph is not written to express a summary of different views concerning whether or not the Supreme Court is politically motivated. It offers no differing viewpoints from a variety of sources and chooses to emphasize only one interpretation. Its only goal is apparently the injection of a Marxist critique concerning the structure of the United States' federal judiciary. That is definitely not NPOV.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute

BoBo 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of a Marxist critique to a description of what most in America regard as a necessary democratic institution in a three-branch government system (see the Federalist Papers if you don't believe me) is in and of itself controversial. Therefore, you should've taken a more cautious, objective and common-sense approach to introducing the topic you wish to present. It appears that you only wish to introduce ideology and not have a balanced discussion of the politicization of the judicial branch.

BoBo 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to inform you that in your signature preferences, I believe that you may not have "raw signature" checked. Make sure that to check that box so when you sign your ~~~~s, it will work in the way that you intended. Cheers! —Curran _{(talk | contibs | random)} 16:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grunge music has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. NSR77 ^T_C 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping around today and thought I'd say "hi" since I saw you also go to a UMass. Nothing more to say, really. Looks like you've done some good work, so keep it up! — The Storm Surfer 08:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for removing the book "Scandalous Hegemony" from the Noam Chomsky page. I didn't even notice it! [1]--Jersey Devil 02:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LGagnon, please add the original link to the picture on burningwell.org since I wasn't able to find it there. Regards, --Flominator 10:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get Randall Flagg's article to either GA or FA status. I've put a lot of effort in the article in the last couple of weeks, expanding and reworking various sections along with adding sources and external information such as quotes and analysis. I put it up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Randall Flagg. Any suggestions you have would be welcome.--CyberGhostface 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a new administrator at Wikisource, and a more experienced admin has been talking me through some admin tasks. See here. I made a mistake in that I dealt with the first part, where he was telling me about deleting images from Category:Orphan media, before properly reading the second part. I assumed that the second part related to other images. The reason I'm mentioning it to you is that an image uploaded by you was in that category, and he suggested that I might want to chat with the uploader before deleting it.

Anyway, I went ahead and deleted it before realizing that that was the image about which he had said that I might want to chat with you first. It had no licence. If I've done the wrong thing and if it's public domain or available under some kind of free licence, please let me know. Apparently it's possible to restore things that I've deleted. The image, in any case, was not being used. I'm posting here because you've used this account more recently than the Wikisource one. Regards. Cowardly Lion (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you'd like to know that Randall Flagg has now passed Good article status.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, I was wondering if you were the same individual as Flickr user LGagnon? And if so, is there any chance you would release your CrimethInc.-related images under a free or Creative Commons license? I'm thinking specifically of this image, but any others would be fantastic also. Regards, Skomorokh 19:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. In any case, if you do have/know of any other usable images, they would be most appreciated. Thanks for your response, Skomorokh 19:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, in the Haunted article you wrote about 'Guts' being in Playboy in March of 2004, and that Chuck offered another story to be in Playboy as well but it was too gross and got turned down. Do you happen to know what the other Palahniuk story was that he submitted to Playboy? Thanks in advance!!! Also, your political views and interests are spot on good sir. -Tubeyes (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Chuckpalahniuknet.PNG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you continue to assist working in the Libertarianism article. I've made significant edits which most have been removed trying to bring context. They barely let me keep what I added on the word's origins. Thanks q (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just browsing around and came to one of my most favorite lists, the list of Virtual Boy Games, now I kinda liked it better with the red coloring but hehehe, what I am messaging you about is that I have a problem. There is a heated debate about changing the article of List of space flight simulation games to the "Chronological list of space flight simulation games", and moving the date to the first column instead of the second. Seeing as how you have done many more lists than I and seeing as how your lists have stood the test of time, I seek your advice ehheeh. I don't like the chronological organization of the list because the year has no bearing on the game whatsoever and I just do get why we need the list to revolve around a piece of information that in many lists is excluded all together. If you could take a look at the list List of space flight simulation games and give your comments here at the Wikiproject Video games talk page I would be really happy. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong, but I feel strongly name should be in the first column. Anyways, we got an administrator to facilitate the situation and the direction of this conversation will determine the fate of this page, so if you could give your two cents, I would be very grateful. Thank you so much --Kirihari (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of cel-shaded video games, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cel-shaded video games. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Alternative rock/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Kurt Cobain/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Template:POVabout ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Music documentary films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Documentary films about music ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alternative musicians, which you created, has been nominated for 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in the "Atlas Shrugged" article that on the 24th of May, 2006, you added a bit that has since changed into it's own category. It speaks of Nathaniel Branden's belief that the book may be harmful psychologically. There is a problem with neutrality in that he was fine with the book until his romantic and business relationship with Ayn Rand exploded in a rather a bitter fashion. Given the number of Rand critics, could you find a different person to address the psychological issue? And one that has a psychology degree from an accredited university, since Branden did not? It would help in the "neutrality" issue, and mean that I don't have to take it down. After all, no critic is ever truly neutral, but surely we should draw the line at posting things from exes, right? *smiles*

Oh, and please know, in spite of what I said on the talk page of "Atlas Shrugged", I won't actually take anything down until you've stopped by to discuss it, or until a bit of time has gone by in which you've had some opportunity to respond. It did, after all, take a long time to find you!

I am in no way attempting to upset you, or to arbitrarily remove any work. I've plenty of disagreement with Rand, and plenty I agree with, just think the ex's comments are not needed.

Alexandria177 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering! As it happens, I discussed it with some others and came to the same conclusion that you explained to me. So Branden's criticism is still in the article. Alexandria177 (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article As Good as Dead has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of alternative rock artists 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/List of alternative rock artists 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 good 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 template from the top of the article.  Sandstein  22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:View from the Green Monster.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The above category, which you created, has been nominated for WP:CFD here. Yours, Quis separabit? 17:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group 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 an organization or company, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TM 20:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Palahniukchoke.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jimmy Wales#Rfc: Links to user:Jimbo Wales. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anime series, 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. —Farix (t | c) 13:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Literature, 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. fgnievinski (talk) 00:27, 29 August 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) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ban Everything.ogg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Yuppie Cadillac.ogg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List Pearl Jam songs covered by others. Since you had some involvement with the List Pearl Jam songs covered by others redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of video game franchises 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/List of video game franchises 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. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox playwright has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox writer. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as List of film seris hexologies too ???, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sonic Youth Teenage Riot.ogg. 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) 17:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of alternative rock 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/Timeline of alternative rock 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. Enjoyer of World^💬 09:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ramones Sheena.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. (t · c) buidhe 23:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]