Archive 1

I noticed you voting in this year's ArbCom elections and I know you are extremely busy, but could you please contact Randomran and briefly explain Template:Notabilityguide and Wikipedia:Notability to him? Randomran created Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise in early September and I think he may be misunderstanding some things. I would also appreciate your input at this thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability. And I know it's alot to wade through, but if you can find the time, could you perhaps glance over Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise and maybe comment somewhere about it? I think your input could do a lot to clear some things up for some people. --Pixelface (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just saying "hi", and mentioning that you've been missed (at least by me), especially at WP:CFD.

I hope that life's treating you well : ) - jc37 20:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Just writing to say that I disagree with your stance on the deletion of Push Singh's wiki page. Your stated reason is that he died before he became famous. But lots of scientists and artists who are without question noteworthy died before they became famous.

Singh laid the foundations for a realm of Artificial Intelligence research that is sufficiently noteworthy that I came across mention of him in spite of the fact that I was just glancing at the topic in a tangent from my initial search. When I read how he passed away, I was immediately curious to learn more about him.

I do understand that there are specific guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia on the basis of notability. I just wish you had left a clearer explanation of why Singh's page didn't meet the criteria (i.e. coverage by reliable secondary sources). If the latter was the reason, here are a few examples of coverage of Singh in reliable secondary sources.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimystery

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimystery_sb

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/jan/breakcommon

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2000/09/38745

Please excuse me if this isn't the place to say this. I'm new to actually interacting with Wikipedia, rather than simply reading it.

Thanks for reading! Milara (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have created a Neutral section for those who agree with the premise but not the method, or some other aspect, which may be altered following talkpage discussion. Perhaps you would wish to review your !vote under the changed circumstances? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Jewish American actors. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kbdank71 16:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey you previously voted on Category:Jewish_Christians which has been recreated it would be appreciated if you post your vote at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_13#Category:Jewish_Christians --Java7837 (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Seeing as you're the original creator of the {{essay}} template, I'd like to direct your attention to this discussion. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 19:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I notice you were involved with the defunct WP:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines. I've proposed something similar (before I was aware of the old one that doesn't seem to have got off the ground). Perhaps you could comment on my proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Policy. Comments on what happened to the old project would be helpful. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 18:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Tourmalike, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unsourced mineral name

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TM 23:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Your quilt is full...

But since you said you're busy, Should I archive it? If you don't respond in a week or so, I'll start a new quilt for you.

I hope this isn't against your wishes or policy or anything...

TheSavageNorwegian 20:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Would like to request for your input on this article. it seems that the main editor is a newcomer; although i already told the editor that it will be better if the wikipedia guidelines are read first before carrying out article writing, it seems that no progress has been made. thanks. Joey80 (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was browsing my logs, and noticed this revert i made of you to an essay I had written. A few things. My bad about the snarky and dismissive edit summary, that was way uncalled for. Not sure why I made it anymore it was so long ago, but you in no way deserved it. Also, I'm seeing, if i were to be looking at some one elses revert, more then a tinge of ownership. I'm not even sure why I felt the need to revert, as the edit seems to be perfectly in line with what I had in mind.

Anyway, it's late, im not sure why im apologizing, but after seeing it I couldn't stop myself. --M^ask? 08:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A user is wanting to radically change the Wikipedia Naming Conflict guideline, particularly with relevance to cutting the section on self-identifying names. A change that might cause havoc in a number of widely-argued naming conflict articles. There is very little involvement of the wider community in this at the moment, so as one of the early contributors to this guideline, I thought I'd ask if you would be interested in commenting at Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict Xandar 20:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you were a regular editor on the 2008 election page. Myself and other editors are odds on some edits we are trying to make to the page. Since you have already been involved in probably similar discussion, we would greatly appreciate hearing your feedback on the 2012 election discussion page under the Republicans and Ruled Out discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Republicans.3F

David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Just thought I'd say hey. Hiding T 12:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Cool beans. Nice to see you, if only ever so briefly. Hiding T 16:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cluocracy, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Cluocracy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Cluocracy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ash (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:XD5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As you were the principal "Oppose"-voting critic of my original early-2007 RfA, it seems appropriate to notify you that WP:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 2 will go live today. You are arguably in a better position than anyone else to judge whether the issues raised have been resolved over the intervening years. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 22:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Back in 2005 you discussed this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality. The article has since been recreated, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Radiant!! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Wouter van der Goes - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Jan Cober - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:RFCpolicy has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:RFCsci has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

About the barnstar, thank you! You really brightened my day! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is to inform you that Wikipedia:Quotations is being proposed as a guideline. I note that you have been involved in previous proposals regarding this page, and as such might be interested in participating in the current discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Quotations#Proposal_To_Upgrade_This_Into_Protocol.--Father Goose (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete nilnilnilium? It is just the same, the redirect pointing to its relevant article.--Mikespedia is on Wikipedia! 16:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been years since you have no common sense with Miss Dynamite. Like I say, Miss Dynamite is well-known webcomic that does not fit with infamous singer so you need to restore this article to Miss Dynamite or remove this article otherwise it makes you look like a dolt. Busy? I think you are full of crap. I am not supporting dolty Wikipedians like you and founder. Not response backing and igroning are not mature that means lack of mature but more like childish with a kid-brain. No respect for Wikipedians. --Culby (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I placed you on the List of Missing Wikipedians. We locked horns on occasion, but I always thought you a most worthy editor. hope all is well. Herostratus (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I recently uploaded a page "Smart Enterprise Proceseses (SEP)" but it calls for speedy deletion. I'm sure that I have committed some mistake while drafting its content. I would be highly thankful to you if you can look into the matter and let me know my mistakes. I'm a big fan of Wikipedia and really want to have this page up. Your edits will help me as future reference. The link to the page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Enterprise_Processes_(SEP). Thanks a ton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhea 1234 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Since your account has been inactive for some time, it has been removed from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list. There is an explanation at Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list#Problem with inactive accounts on the list. You are, of course, welcome to re-add yourself to the list if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Back in 2005, you participated in an AFD discussion this article. It was kept, but I have renominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Very Secret Diaries (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've involved you in some egregious silliness here --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brainy Smurf 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/Brainy Smurf 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. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Stuffed cat (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join to the project e^xtra999 (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hm, that's an interesting change out of WP:PEREN. I suppose I'd have to look into that. >Radiant< 14:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Gidday! --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed :) >Radiant< 14:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Hey you! Hiding T 17:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Seeing your name in my watchlist induces a smile. ʕ•͡ᴗ•ʔ —Quiddity (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Yes it does : ) - jc37 22:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:RRA

I remember collaborating with you after you wrote the core of WP:OC. I realise you haven't been incredibly active lately, but I was wondering if you would consider helping look over WP:RRA. - jc37 22:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What does 'per' mean?, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What does 'per' mean? and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:What does 'per' mean? during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BDD (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hah. I think I remember when Radiant used to tidy those sorts of pages! Hiding T 19:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's pretty meta, isn't it? :) >Radiant< 00:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Given it's been kept at MfD, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Steel1943 (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Hertog Jan 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 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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Bojo1498 (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Moop Mama 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 band or musician, 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 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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Epeefleche (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Metastasis. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Metastasis redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. NE Ent 14:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 01:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

update Nafieail (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

• Leeds on 12th April 2015
• Manchester on 26th April 2015
• Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect February 29, 1900. Since you had some involvement with the February 29, 1900 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not intended to reflect negatively on you in any way, but what will reflect negatively on you is if you make a make a few edits just before the deadline an be done for the year, as you've done the the last two years. Don't do that. It gives us false census info, it's gamemanship, it's corrupt, and you don't need the bit anyway. It'd be best to let the bit expire or resign it; if you want to come back and help administer the site later on, just ask for it back. Thanks and all the best, --Herostratus (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't be so rude Herostratus. If Radiant! Is keeping a half-eye on the project, that is a very good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Radiant!, due to your recent inactivity, I have now removed your sysop userright. Thank you for all your hard work Worm^TT(talk) 07:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The MGTOW page on Wikipedia has been deleted several times in 2006 and 2007, primarily due to lack or WP:Notability and WP:Citations. (You are mentioned as one of the editors to have deleted it.) The page is currently protected from creation, so only administrators can create it. However, a lot has changed since 2007. Today, MGTOW has been described in books (Helen Smith Ph.D., Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters), and (using the literal word "MGTOW") in many articles in mainstream or notable newspapers and websites, including VICE Magazine, Reason magazine, the Daily Mail, the Sunday Times, the Independent, the Irish Independent, Independent Journal Review, Breitbart, the Huffington Post, Wales Online, PanAmerican Post, InfoWars, Metro, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, as can be established using a quick Google Search. A quick search for the keyword "MGTOW" on Google News yields many more results. I kindly request that you reinstate the MGTOW page, or allow others to create this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight (talk • contribs) 12:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kilogoogle. Since you had some involvement with the Kilogoogle redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Google (noun). Since you had some involvement with the Google (noun) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Three month VfD policy. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Three month VfD policy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thincat (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Yankee land. Since you had some involvement with the Yankee land redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Chemical compounds. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Chemical compounds redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Radiant, I had hoped to talk to you but it looks like you're long gone from this place. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Notability during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Kindly participate in the voting if you are still around. Thank you.--Jondel (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Gryffindor (currently clssified under "Magical/Paranormal") and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (currently classified under "Literary") should go together.
2. A tiger shark is clearly not a mammal, it's a fish, so TigerShark doesn't belong in the "Other mammals" section.
3. Jimbo Wales doesn't belong in the "Cetacean" group - you could argue that he belongs in the "Geographical" group. Wales is a part of the UK; the cetacean isn't a wale - it's a whale.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Ladnav has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:RFCheader has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipede. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipede redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ GB fan 14:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Characters and locations in Winx Club. Since you had some involvement with the Characters and locations in Winx Club redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Atlantic306 (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:No confidence. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:No confidence redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. B dash (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The article Journey to Rooted Hold has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, fails WP:GNG.

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. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1 E100. Since you had some involvement with the 1 E100 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. B dash (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changelog, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Changelog and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Changelog during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 23:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Swordchuck. Since you had some involvement with the Swordchuck redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Swordchucks. Since you had some involvement with the Swordchucks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikipedia:Notability 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/Wikipedia:Notability 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. Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Don't call the kettle black during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MarshallKe (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:CHG and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 21#Wikipedia:CHG until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Q𝟤𝟪 07:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)