User talk:Hike796

Welcome!

Hello Hike796, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Thanks for your efforts to recategorize and correctly categorize the Great Basin geography articles. KMLP (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Great Basin Resource Watch

The article Great Basin Resource Watch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Organization that is not notable. No third party reliable sources.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meadow Valley Wash

Howdy Hike796...First:
Whew....!..I am glad I didn't notice this days ago before I got started on Category:Great Basin Divide border landforms of Nevada.
I was just looking at my watchlist and looked at the Ranger Mountains, and "File:Coloradorivermapnew.jpg". I put the map on high resolution-(which isn't very high). Here are the results: 2 items:
The maps used at Great Basin Divide have an error. (and before you get all excited, i'll explain). (It also means that I followed the mountains in SE Nevada incorrectly. I was also working on the NE Nevada section, so I didn't Perceive in my mind the error.)

1–The File:Coloradorivermapnew ~~has the White River wrong.~~(It is correct but discontiuous, and ignores the parallel/twin watershed just east(M Vall W)) (Had to RE-EXAMINE the map)..The White River does flow south from the two RESERVOIRS in the White River Valley. It parallels and is West of the source of Meadow Valley Wash 2 valleys east, endorheic Cave Valley (Nevada), then Meadow Valley Wash has origins west from Lake Valley (Nevada)-(i.e. "Patterson Wash") and east, ......at the south of the Wilson Creek Range. The White River (Nevada) has the BETTER map blow up.(I JUST found it.) The lowest course of the White from Pahranagat Lake-(Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge) is on the maps as the Pahranagat Wash.

2–So the problem is ~~SORRY, changing definition an "area",~~ that [see White River(NEV) map] that it is a "twin watershed White River Valley, westerly and Meadow V. Wash & Valleys" AREA-(two separate Watersheds-but (Parallel)-(origin: Lake Valley (Nevada)(I'll NOW do THAT article, first).. easterly. Consequently that region of the Great Basin Divide is somewhat subjective. NOT having seen the "White River"-Article, I thought the divide crossed at the south of Pahranagat Lake, (but then I ignored M. Valley Wash. .....) --I see now both have to be taken into consideration for SE Nevada.
Any suggestions"?-The definitive east side of "Great Basin Divide" is the East of the Ranges adjacent east to Meadow Valley Wash. What to do with the White River?
(M.Valley Wash has no Reservoirs, and.. the White River article says the river is discontinuous.)(even if one takes the Great Divide Basin at "south of Pahranagat Marshlands", the entire (continuous)Meadow Valley Wash has to be considered--(from HotSonoranDesert, southwestArizonaUSA...Mmcannis (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No important Typo's.. It is obvious (to me) The Great Divide Basin map is using south of Pahranagat Lake, and SIMPLY ignoring Meadow Valley Wash...Mmcannis (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eldorado Valley

After doing a lot of Arizona stuff, (landforms, etc.) I ended up at Piute Wash & Piute Valley and Eldorado Valley... I have recently done the ".svg" maps (w/ Geoboxes), so I have travelled much further than just the articles. Fish Lake Valley was one of the articles that was for that....

So, I have bigger fish to fry... and sorry that I got confused with the PUSHPIN for Spring Valley, ---for some stupid reason I thought it was a valley at west Las Vegas, obviously it was (somebody's JOKE,..or an honest mistake)...At any rate I had been adding (endorheic valley-items) into Central Nevada Desert Basins plus I had seen "Steptoe Valley"...(in other places-doing a lot of valleys lately).. so I finally concluded yesterday it was somebody's ERROR... (And found the problem in the article to fix it.)

Here's my olive branch and meditation... I think you'll find that the Great Basin Divide comes from the southeast Spring Mtns, crosses north of endorheic Roach Lake-(i.e. Ivanpah Valley) goes into the McCullough Range, courses around the north of Eldorado Valley-(endorheic) into the Eldorado Mountains back around the south of Eldorado V., then due-west past the Piute Wash watershed uplands (that Wonderful Triple Point Area, (north of Lanfair Valley), New York Mtns, etc... The Mojave National Preserve, obviously is all west of the water divide..(Great Basin Divide as it ceases and turns south to become the Other Border-(north Mojave I guess-East Side) ...(from the SonoranDesert, ArizonaUSA..Mmcannis (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

It serves no purpose to create a disambiguation page if none of the individual pages exist. Pages such as Dutch John Mountain and Fairview Peak contain no meaningful information. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Category:Dry Lake Watershed

Hello Hike796, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created on October 23 2010, Category:Dry Lake Watershed, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Shannon1 (page has mainspace links, and 5 edits). This has been done because the page was created in violation of a ban (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Shannon1. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Shannon1 (talk · contribs) 12:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits in conflict with User:Mmcannis

Hi; it's been brought to my attention (and I have been noticing myself) that you have been in a bit of an edit war across a number of pages with User:Mmcannis. Can we slow things down, and stop the back and forth? You two need to discuss things on the talk page instead of just endlessly reverting each other. If you keep it up, you are both in danger of being blocked for disruptive editing. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi—just to follow up on the above—do you have any connection to the user account User:US40AL-01? There is a suggestion that you do. Please respond here ASAP. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question. I wasn't notifying you about the fact that your account may be compromised. I was asking you if you have ever logged in as another user—specifically, User:US40AL-01. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redundant categories

In what was is Category:Categories named after valleys different from Category:Valleys? Or Category:Categories named after landforms from Category:Landforms?? NB, also, the narrow scope of the terminology "valleys" excludes some articles which are nonetheless valley-based, e,g. Category:Okanagan Country and Category:Nicola Country. But aside from that issue, I just don't see the point of a category about valleys, and a category about categories named after valleys. What am I missing here?Skookum1 (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're redundant. ~~Although I'd bet that the first cat you mentioned might actually be Category:Valleys of Nevada.~~ Shannon ^talk _contribs 04:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not redundant. A category is a category, an abstract concept, a valley is a valley; rivers run through valleys but not through categories. Category:Categories named after valleys contains categories, Category:Valleys contains valleys. Occuli (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/US40AL-01 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USGS

Defined USGS units like the Delamar and Dry Lake Valleys basin are not likely notable and hence should not have articles and definitely not a category. I strongly recommend that you create a list article for the larger units if you this these need to be included. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hike796; I'd recommend that you take Vegaswikian's advice about categories. We're having trouble with categories you are creating repeatedly being nominated for deletion and being deleted, so it's not productive for you or those who are nominating them. I appreciate that you're trying to expand USGS information in Wikipedia, but I too think that the best way to go about this would be the creation of list articles, since they are of questionable notability. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Category:Pahrump Valley. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Categories must be defining for the articles included. These USGS definitions are not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hike796, please respond here. You're putting yourself in danger of being blocked from editing because you're being unresponsive to the concerns of other editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I share these concerns about rampant category creation. Occuli (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Please review Help:Minor edit to see what edits should be marked as minor. I believe that you are marking edits incorrectly. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communication is not a choice

Wikipedia is created and maintained through consensus. This means that no one editor gets to own content, regardless of whether they posted it, and it means that communication is not a choice. If other editors are raising complaints with your contributions, you do not have the option of ignoring them and continuing to do what you were doing. Editing contrary to consensus while ignoring other editors asking you to stop or change is ultimately viewed as disruptive and inevitably leads to being sanctioned, including being blocked from editing. And it looks like a good portion of what you have posted has been getting deleted, which is another sign that there is a problem, and another sign you cannot ignore. So please take a time out from what you are posting, respond to the complaints others have raised here on your talk page and elsewhere, and discuss how these topics should be addressed. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

Could you please read WP:AGF and consider that in your edit comments especially when the changes others made were based on established criteria. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fall River

When you split articles like you did at Fall River (California) you need to follow Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your removal of content from Lahontan Valley and the cut-n-paste addition to the Forty Mile Desert redirect page. You left no edit summary indicating what you were doing, please read the link User Vegaswikian left for you above. Don't cut material from one article and paste into another without at least noting so in your edit summaries and preferably on the affected article talk pages as well. Vsmith (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up templates

Just to let you know that most clean-up templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" (Citation needed) and "{{POV}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 21:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Range id

Hi, did you see my note at Talk:Highland Range (Lincoln County) ? The Highland Range in Lincoln County is a long ways from the Eldorado Valley that I've driven through a dozen times... Stan (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have seen enough from you now that I regretfully have to block you for your behaviour. It is quite obvious that these anonymous edits are yours. I'm not sure if you were trying to be anonymous so that you could get away with being incivil, or if you just forgot to sign in. Regardless, comments like "Does this Vegaswikiuser really think such dim claims are valid", "More lack of critical thinking", "Geez, how dim are you folks gonna' be?", and so forth are not appropriate because they are uncivil.

The block will be temporary, lasting only 2 days, but when it expires please remember to (1) be civil and (2) to respond to concerns of other users when they approach you on your talk page. If you continue acting how you have been acting for the past few weeks—by ignoring users when they approach you on your talk page and then anonymously attacking them, I think it's inevitable that you will be blocked for a longer period of time, and perhaps indefinitely. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While deleting someone's vote at a voting process is definitely not allowed, I'm not sure this block was appropriate. Good Ol'factory, Couldn't you have at least warned Hike796 first? The block first, ask questions mentality, while appropriate in extreme situations, has gotten a few admins in trouble recently. Dave (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's been warned multiple times before, and he wasn't blocked for deleting someone else's comments. He was blocked for repeatedly ignoring the inquiries of others and for incivility. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Tampa Bay Watershed

Category:Tampa Bay Watershed, 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of tagging - fix it

Hike - you recently tagged Cactus Flat for Bare URLs, a fact that I discovered when reviewing the AfD on the article. It took me less than 5 minutes to edit and fix the article. A productive contributor will take the time to fix little things like this instead of waiting for someone else to do it. Your contributions to WP are appreciated. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hike796 - thanks for your note on my talk page. Regarding Bare URLs, I think using the template {{Bare URLs}} is a lazy approach to improving WP. You stated: you [me I assume] were unaware that user did not (and still does not) know the titles, authors, or other information required to eliminate the Bare URLs (e.g., with Template:Cite web). I find that difficult to understand when all one has to do is follow the URL, see what the page title is, who published it and add that to the {{cite web}} template. If you can follow the URL, you can easily convert it to {{cite web}}. Just follow the URL and it will provide the information you need. So my admonition remains, when you run across a Bare URL, fix it instead of tagging it. Again thanks for your contributions. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WBD citation

So a direct link to the data would be ftp://gateway2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/Gateway/WBD/WBDHU12_01Dec2010_ArcGIS9.2_File.gdb.zip A general explanation of the data would be http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/datainfo.html A more technical explanation which is needed to read the data would be ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NCGC/products/watershed/hu-standards.pdf Or http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/ links to all three. How do you think a citation for the Watershed Boundary Dataset should read? Kmusser (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the .gdb extension does not stand for GNU Debugger, it stands for geodatabase. There are other download options for the WBD, like shapefile. Pfly (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Labrador Sea

Please discuss your concerns regarding "marginal sea" on talk:Labrador Sea rather than with tags and hidden comments in the article. Vsmith (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please use the talk page to communicate your concerns rather than adding a long contradict tag to the article. The article does not contradict itself and the statement is sourced, I've changed the wording of the statement about marginal sea to avoid "some". Vsmith (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Labrador Sea removed/reverted good edits by others, please be more careful. Wictionary definitions are not an WP:RS for supporting a contradict tag. The provided reference in the text re: marginal sea has been verified, it is up to you to find references which dispute this -- not just slap on a verify tag as you have repeatedly done. Please discuss on the article talk rather than edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to user questions using this page or article talk pages

Hike796, your non-responsiveness to other users was a central reason for the previous block. Please start using talk pages to discuss things with other users when they request that you do so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you for your continued disruption. Across the board, you have repeatedly engaged in edits that other editors have had problems with, and you have completely failed to either discuss it with them on article talk pages or to respond to them here. Day after day, I see one editor after another complaining about this, and you ignore them. I see no alternative but to force you to communicate. I have made your block indefinite, but you can still edit your own talk page. I will unblock you as soon as you post something here showing that you understand why you were blocked and that you promise to change: to use talk pages to discuss controversial edits, and to respond to others' comments here and elsewhere instead of ignoring them. postdlf (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And seconds after doing that, I see you did post a message on Talk:Labrador Sea. So I've unblocked you, and I apologize for not noticing that before. But please keep that up; you really need to do a lot more to communicate on talk pages, and you need to actually resolve disagreements there rather than just posting an explanation and then continuing to edit as you had regardless of the opposition. postdlf (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits and edit summaries

Repeating a request made a month and a half ago: Please review Help:Minor edit to see what edits should be marked as minor. I believe that you are marking edits incorrectly. Also, your edit summaries sometimes seem to suggest a much less significant edit than was the case. Some examples: edit diff: Harney Basin (a large major edit), edit diff: Silver Creek (marked minor with edit summary "+Silver Creek Volcanic Field" but includes many non-minor edits on a variety of topics), edit diff: Rio Grande. This one at the Rio Grande page was marked as a minor edit with the edit summary "+ American mediterranean sea", but the actual edit includes adding a large warning box banner about a contradiction with another page as well quite a few non-minor edits that have nothing to do with the "American mediterranean sea". A final example, edit diff: Central Asian Internal Drainage Basin, which is not marked "minor" but the edit summary "+Template:Dead link" is rather misleading. See Help:Edit summary for more. Thank you. Pfly (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Preserved railway stations

Category:Preserved railway stations, 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Geographic taxonomies

Category:Geographic taxonomies, 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Preserved machines

Category:Preserved machines, 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Preserved automobiles

Category:Preserved automobiles, 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Great Valley

Category:Great Valley, which you created, has been nominated by another editor 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Railway-related National Historic Landmarks

Category:Railway-related National Historic Landmarks, which you created, has been nominated by another editor 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:San Juan Basin

Category:San Juan Basin, which you created, has been nominated by another editor 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Laguna Madre Watershed

Category:Laguna Madre Watershed, which you created, has been nominated by another editor 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Divided regions between Canada and the United States

Category:Divided regions between Canada and the United States, which you created, has been nominated by another editor 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. RevelationDirect RevelationDirect (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category creations

Hi Hike796; as you can see from the above entries on this page, quite a few of the categories you are creating are being nominated for deletion. I think it would be a good idea at this stage if you temporarily stopped creating categories and instead join in these discussions and explain your rationale for creating the ones that you have created. If you continue to create categories that get nominated for deletion and you don't respond to others' concerns, it's possible users might want to permanently prevent you from creating them. Thanks, and please respond here to this post one way or the other! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond here to this posting, Hike. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Preserved computers

Category:Preserved computers, 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Davis Strait Watershed

Category:Davis Strait Watershed, 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Category:Davis Strait Watershed, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:San Luis Basin

Category:San Luis Basin, which you created, has been nominated by another editor 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Kotzebue Sound Watershed

Category:Kotzebue Sound Watershed, which you created, has been nominated by another editor 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Gulf of Alaska Watershed

Category:Gulf of Alaska Watershed, which you created, has been nominated by another editor 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Gulf of Venezuela Watershed

Category:Gulf of Venezuela Watershed, which you created, has been nominated by another editor 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various Category nomination discussions

I created an awards cat that ended up getting deleted but the conversation was helpful for me to understand some of the logic with cteating cats. And participating with some of these discussions helped me to better name some categories going forward. In addition to discussing this with GOF, please feel free to join the discussions about the particular cats with the links above. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Kuskokwim Bay Watershed

Category:Kuskokwim Bay Watershed, which you created, has been nominated by another editor 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Death Valley region

The article Death Valley region has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article with unclear scope. No source cited. Likely original research.

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. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Media about the Pony Express

Category:Media about the Pony Express, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Death Valley ecoregion for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Death Valley ecoregion 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/Death Valley ecoregion 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. —hike395 (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Conservation Security Program has been nominated for deletion

Category:Conservation Security Program 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]