User talk:Blindman shady

Early Warnings[edit]

Please discuss your edits on the article talk page before further reverts. --Mmx1 03:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Koji Dude ^{(viva la} ^BAM!) 01:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Edit summary on Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2[edit]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- bulletproof ^3:16 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians often report as facts things they remember hearing about or reading somewhere, but they don't remember where, and they have no corroborating evidence. It is important to seek reliable sources to verify these types of reports, and if they cannot be verified, any editor may delete or challenge them.

It is always appropriate to ask other editors to produce their sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor. However, some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to find a source, particularly when the material is not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful. Instead of removing such material immediately, editors are encouraged to move it to the talk page, or to place the {{fact}} template after the disputed word or sentence, or to tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}} at the top of the page. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, which are policy, and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.

Do not, however, remove statements that you believe to be both true and common knowledge, simply because they aren't sourced. Don't, for instance, remove a reference to "earth's elliptical orbit" simply because the writer has not supported the assertion that planetary orbits are elliptical.

If you do honestly disbelieve a statement, do remove it and request a source on the talk page. If you do honestly think it isn't common knowledge, do tag it as requiring a reference or query it on the talk page. And do be skeptical about claims of "common knowledge" about people, especially living people. Gossip is not common knowledge.-- bulletproof ^3:16 16:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided not one but two reliable sources, You on the other hand have provided none. Therefore, it is now you who must provide a reliable source. I have provided evidence to support the claim. You Tube, per Wikipedia policy, is not a reliable source as it can be edited by anyone just like in Wikipedia. Failure to provide a reliable source will result in your claim being removed per Wikipedia:Verifiability -- bulletproof ^3:16 17:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erythropoietic Protoporphyria[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you created the page Erythropoietic Protoporphyria. All of the text on that page seems to have been copied directly from this web page. I have flagged the article for speedy deletion as a probably copyright violation. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from other web sites or printed material.

There is already an existing article on this disease which can be found at Erythropoietic protoporphyria. If you have more information, you should probably add it to that article. Please take care to ensure that any new information you add is not directly copied from an external source without permission. Thanks. - Eron 04:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I thought a reference added at the end credits a website for its writing. Blindman shady 04:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The references detail where the information used to write the article came from, but the article itself must be original, not a direct word-for-word copy of the source. Wikipedia's copyright policy explains this in some detail. - Eron 13:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:FindingJudas.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:FindingJudas.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. PullToOpen - talk 01:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blindman shady 20:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of info from Clueless (House episode)[edit]

I'm not sure why you deleted the diagnosis info from Clueless (House episode), but I returned it. If you still think it ought to be removed, please give reasons why rather than just deleting the info with no edit summary. Thanks. --Sopoforic 07:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I'm not sure how "House uses stannous chloride to affirm gold poisoning." could possibly be vandlism. I wouldn't want to put the diagnosis lower on the page since most of the other episodes use a common format which places diagnosis about allusions. I put a spoiler tag on it, though. Anyway, my issue wasn't so much with you removing the info (it's easily replaced, after all), but rather your empty edit summary. If I'd known why you did it, the solution would have been obvious, and we wouldn't have needed the long conversation. --Sopoforic 17:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But adding correct information is never vandalism. You shouldn't remove it even if it is a spoiler. There's info for that at WP:SPOILER, which specifically says never to delete information just because it's a spoiler--you should add spoiler templates instead, which I've done. I'd recommend avoiding the articles for any episodes you haven't seen, since they often do have spoilers. That's what I did, anyway. Well, thanks for explaining, and for remaining reasonable. Have a nice day. --Sopoforic 04:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.....or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SSJ Zac (talk • contribs)

Your House episode page revert[edit]

→ (Please note: originally posted to Talk:Que Será Será (House episode). Cross-posted because of the context here: Blindman shady has been causing similar problems for editors of other articles.)

(1.) Encyclopedia articles require verifiable facts, not non-NPOV/OR alterations. You gave no sources, nor did you review the sources provided by another editor in support of assertions of fact. What you termed "that website" is the FOX Broadcasting Company's own site, which confirms that the official episode title is "Que Sera Sera" (no comma, no accent marks, regardless of what anyone else might suppose it should have been named instead.)

(2.) From the article history (timestamps UTC 2006):

" ... 18:30, 24 December ... Athaenara ... (moved Que Será Será (House episode) to Que Sera Sera (House episode): Accent marks spurious. Please note verification & sources on talk pages for both song & episode.) "

(If you do not know what spurious means, see the Wiktionary definition including synonyms: false; fake; counterfeit.) There are sound factual reasons for my edit summary. Such edit summaries are intended not to be ignored but to be verified. No one can force you to do that but, had you done so, you would have known that there is no encyclopedic basis for returning it to the former page name, as you then did:

" ... 20:09, 24 December ... Blindman shady ... (moved Que Sera Sera (House episode) to Que Será Será (House episode): Accents needed)"

This edit summary, in contrast, is neither factual nor supported by references to pertinent and valid sources.

(3.) Like all good Wikipedians, I strive to avoid edit warring, so I will not revert immediately. I waited more than a week for discussion, after stating my views, the reasons for them, and providing sources for verification, before moving the page. You, however, with no discussion, reverted within less than two hours. If you revert it again, rather than verifying the factual basis for moving the page to the correct network series episode name, some form of dispute resolution will be needed. Please study the dispute resolution page to understand what is involved. Athænara ✉ 07:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lines in the Sand[edit]

I stand by my revert to the dab page. It is not clear that any of the items listed on the dab page would be the primary topic and displace the dab page at that title. The fact that the other two uses listed don't have an article is not a justification to not have the dab page at the main article space. As I said in my revert comment, if you believe that this redirect should be deleted, then take it to RfD where it can be discussed. Vegaswikian 00:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for fixing the wrong quote on my userpage. Cheers, P TO 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of House episodes[edit]

Thanks! Hopefully the list will be ready for another FLC in a month or two. Cheers, P TO 02:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:250px-Babelou.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:250px-Babelou.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:FindingJudas.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:FindingJudas.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House episodes[edit]

Please see WP:CIVIL as what you left on my talk page was a border line personal attack. Please do not act as though leaving empty sections in these articles is a good idea. I can see how you want to leave sections within the articles in the event that another editor comes along and wants to add information. However at Wikipedia we are not supposed to anticipate editing. Either we edit or we don't. In addition, most of these sections that are inside the House episode articles are trivia sections, albeit trivia sections in disguise. A "Diagnosis" section? That should be understood by reading the synopsis. "Medical terms" should be wikilinked within the Synopsis. "Clinic patients"? interesting, but not important and not essential to understanding the plot. Again, most of what is contained in the "Arc Advancement" section should be present in the Synopsis. "Happenings" is simply filled with OR. Characters should be dealt with in the Synopsis. And "Referbacks" isn't even a word. The fact that all of these articles contain trivia sections directly violates WP:AVTRIV, and typically do not contain nearly enough information to fill it out. So as you can see. Not only is the anticipation of editing with this system, wrong. But the system itself is extremely flawed. The Filmaker 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please remain civil in discussions with other users and avoid personal attacks. I am not ignoring content or being lazy. Each page that I reorganize results in me deleting content because the content is trivial and unencyclopedic. The Filmaker 04:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of House edits, when reverting an edit by The Filmmaker I accidentally got their name mixed up with your name, Blindman shady. Sorry :( And to The Filmmaker, moving the information in the "Diagnosis", "Characters", and "Medical terms" sections into "Synopsis" instead of just deleting the sections and most of the page would've been much more helpful, which is why I reverted your edit. Davidjcobb 22:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball Wiki[edit]

Hi there. I noticed you're fan of the Dragon Ball series, and I'm trying to recruit some fans from here to contribute to the Dragon Ball Wiki. It's in terrible shape right now with pretty much no consistency or policies, and only this week have I been able to get Angela and Sannse to create some Forums for us over there. I've got a proposed Manual of Style going over there and would like some people to contribute to that to set up some policies and start making the wiki bigger, better, and more intelligible/consistent. If you're interested, please hop on over or talk to me. Thanks for the time, whether you're interested or not. Wildyoda 08:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Blocking[edit]

~~{{unblock|I have no clue why I was blocked, I contributed no vandalism and don't have that IP adress anyway.}}~~

Hi. Can you copy and paste the full block message you are seeing? You have not been blocked directly, so you must have been autoblocked. In order to unblock you, we need the name of the blocking admin, the name of the user that is causing the block (if available), and the IP that it says is blocking you. Thanks. --BigDT 04:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I was unblocked. It was an IP adress that was blocking me which made me wonder why I was blocked when I was signed in to my name.
Blind man shady 04:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it! I have commented out your unblock request so that it won't show up in CAT:RFU. --BigDT 05:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Messages[edit]

Your message completely fooled me. Big Boss 0 03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you did with the new messages thing but you are not a member of the New World Organization. However I can allow you membership into the New World Organization Wolfpack. What do you say? Big Boss 0 15:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, Big Boss, if he wants to claim he is, you can't stop him. You don't control who says what organizations they belong to on Wikipedia. You're not actually the people's champion, you realize that, right? Metros232 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is a vacancy for the position of the leader of the Wolfpack. That is the reason that I wish to put you in that position. But I have one thing that you must agree on. You must agree to keep me informed of your activities. So What do you say shady?

Oh yeah metros I didn't beat someone who was champion for eight months and then hold the title for 366 days for nothing. I am the Real People's Champion Big Boss 0 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have gone completely mad. -- The Hyb rid 23:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you guys argue somewhere else?
Blind man shady 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My offer still stands. Do you wish to have leadership of the Wolfpack. Big Boss 0 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BB0 is going to get himself blocked. Stay away from his nWo. -- The Hyb rid 05:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as involvement goes little to none. I have no interest in drawing you into my personal affairs. Big Boss 0 14:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits to Episodes of Kyle XY (season 1)[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Blindman shady! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bfreewebs\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

Hey no prob. Glad to help. I kind of hate getting formatting to work too. The Wiki system sometimes does suck with that. Usually moving things around to avoid overlapping helps. And good luck with any future formatting errors. Cheers! --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 14:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism or error?[edit]

Hi - In Imagine (song) I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt as you are an experienced editor - did you actually mean to revert to this: "Imagine" is widely considered as a piece of communist propaganda or was that a mistake? Tvoz |talk 04:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Oh, I've done that before! And I totally didn't see the "e" - just thought the "communist" bit was, well, a bit much... Tvoz |talk

Do not confuse Russia with USSR[edit]

I think that's a strange thing to place in Russia page. I mean I don't think there's a "do not confuse butter with margarine" in butter page, that's borderline POV and actually an indication to readers, an Encyclopedia should contain information, not indications. -- AdrianTM 22:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Final_Smash.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Final_Smash.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Final Smash.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Final Smash.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

%3Cbr%3EBlind man shady 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC) %3Cbr%3EBlind man shady 22:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper grammar for prepositional phrases[edit]

The example you gave on my talk page is not a direct analogy to the sentence at issue in California recall. Consider: "The sweet potatoes are in the vegetable bin that is painted green." Clearly, the "is" in this sentence shouldn't be "are", even though the subject of the sentence is plural, because "that is painted green" is a restrictive clause that modifies "the vegetable bin," not "the sweet potatoes." Your version of the sentence in California recall would be correct if either a) "that allows recalls" were not a restrictive clause (in which case, please explain what grammatical status it has) or b) "that allows recalls" modified "California," rather than "15 states" (in which case, please explain how the sentence parsed that way makes sense). VoluntarySlave (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite of b plus or minus the square root of b minus 4ac all over 2a listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Opposite of b plus or minus the square root of b minus 4ac all over 2a. Since you had some involvement with the Opposite of b plus or minus the square root of b minus 4ac all over 2a redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding so promptly. I've closed the discussion early per your comment. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 00:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Wii (tenative title)[edit]

Would you object to deletion of Kirby Wii (tenative title), which you created in February 2008 and which currently redirects to Kirby? I understand why you created it—at the time, the main article was located at Kirby (tentative title)—but it no longer seems to be necessary (and not a likely search term due to the portion in parentheses), especially in light of the existence of other redirects like Kirby Wii and Kirby (Wii). Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't stay up to date on Kirby games anymore; are people pretty sure there won't be a Kirby Wii game? Or does it have a title already? Blind man shady 15:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, after reading this article from 2007, I was under the impression that the game had already been released. However, looking closer at the information in Kirby (video game), it appears that there have been conflicting statements about whether the game will be developed and released. My apologies for the confusion... I should have looked more closely at the article. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 04:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Special chicken and Special Chicken[edit]

Your reversion on 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash[edit]

Just to let you know, this edit you reverted was actually removing vandalism. See Borat Sagdiyev. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I thought that someone removed someone important because I was seeing other stuff like the addition of Harry Potter as the Deputy of Wizardry or some BS like that. (I didn't even read the name... oops) Thanks for letting me know! :)
Blind man shady 18:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It happens. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California elections[edit]

You drastically changed the existing figures without a source. If they're correct, feel free to re-add them, but don't be surprised that it looked dodgy. Rebecca (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, by all means change it, with my apologies. Rebecca (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prime 3 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Prime 3. Since you had some involvement with the Prime 3 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"PHGSS" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect PHGSS. Since you had some involvement with the PHGSS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve One Day, One Room[edit]

Hello, Blindman shady,

Thank you for creating One Day, One Room.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Your article on the House episode "One Day, One Room" is almost entirely a plot summary and an infobox. It would be good to add additional information, about the episode's ratings, any critical response to the episode, etc.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|PopePompus}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

PopePompus (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Words and Deeds[edit]

The article Words and Deeds has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear notable. No reviews. Tagged for notability since 2011

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. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Top Secret (House)[edit]

The article Top Secret (House) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail notability, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2011

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. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Top Secret (House) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Top Secret (House) 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/Top Secret (House) 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.

DonaldD23 talk to me 01:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]