User talk:Trollderella
Welcome to my talk page - old talk is here - User talk:Trollderella/archive1, 2
When you're right, you're right.[edit]
This gave me a good laugh. Everyone needs to be kept honest sometimes, eh? And while I'm here, I'm pretty happy about how the Template:suicide turned out, what do you think?
brenneman(t)(c) 00:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Heh[edit]
I admire your well-reasoned arguments, but you're never going to convince people that deletion for lack of notability runs contrary to the deletion policy. However, I agree with some of what you say, and I'm starting to think I don't much like the concept of "notability" either, so I just think in terms of verifiability. I think a lot of people mean "not verifiable" when they say "not notable", whether they realize it or not. Or, even if they don't, it's often useful to pretend they do.
Of course, even if folks agree to think in terms of verifiability, there's still plenty of room for disagreement. Many editors think that personal websites count as reliable sources; I happen to disagree (usually). Even with traditional media, how much coverage is enough? The local star football player in high school will be mentioned in the local papers, but few editors would say he should have an encyclopedia article. Friday (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman, 669 F.2d 852, the Second Circuit held that Stern could copyright the images and sounds in the game, not just the source code that produced them.
Hello Trollderella. Please be aware that an RFC has been established for the purpose of resolving incivility issues between Harris and other members of Wikipedia, many of which are AFD-related. An argument is being made that responding to someone who requests civility during discussion by telling them to "fuck off" is permittable, so I wanted to bring this matter to your attention in case you would like to comment. Thanks, Silensor 18:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I just want to clarify my reasoning on this DRV debate.
- These are not votes, they are discussions. Thus, the status of the person making an argument should have no bearing on the way that argument is recieved. I think that we agree on that much.
- The bit that I'm apparently not making myself clear on is that any person who fails to make an arguement should expect to have their opinion discounted. Thus, "Keep - notability is not policy." is an excellent argument and should enter into consideration, while "Keep - notable" without providing evidence should not. A bare "Keep" with no other wording misunderstands the way that AfD is meant to work.
- All of the above applies to a "Delete" recomendation as well, of course.
On another note, have you ever felt the strong desire to publicly sign up with GNAA simply to stir up a hornet's nest? Because I sure have.
brenneman(t)(c) 23:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
This is just to warn you that this image you uploaded will shortly be deleted. The reason for this that it has a non-free license, cc-by-sa-nc-2.0. As this was uploaded after 19 May 2005 it is eligable for speedy-deletion according to Jimbo's proclamation [2]. Thryduulf 00:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Topless picture[edit]
Hello, unfortunately the nice topless picture you uploaded does not allow commercial use and is therefore not acceptable on Wikipedia. I hope we find a good substitute.
Image:Topless surf.jpg has been listed as a possible copyright violation[edit]
| An image that you uploaded, Image:Topless surf.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the neccesary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. |
Cheers, AxelBoldt 09:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Fame and importance[edit]
Keep up the good work on this, Trollderella. I firmly agree with your position on fame/importance/notability. I've tried once or twice to argue it on the various "rulecruft" policy pages, but I don't have a lot of enthusiasm for crusading on policy issues - I'd rather be writing articles - so I'm very glad to see someone else articulating "our" position so clearly and convincingly.
Snottygobble | Talk 01:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Reverts[edit]
That's actually 5 reverts in the space of about as many hours on CSD. I won't have you blocked for it since you've been largely in good-faith, but honestly you should stop panicking about it. And definitely stop reverting. -Splashtalk 23:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- The thing on VP is only a straw poll to get things going. It's even got the usual "no polls in this poll" people voting against voting. It doesn't have a whole lot of meaning. But, if you want to count it, and I wouldn't if I were you, you're the only one actually opposing the proposal, and 9/10 support isn't so bad... -Splashtalk 23:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'd object to the use of the word "largely" in the sentance above. I have no doubts about you operating in good faith. However, it appears that this particular attempt to hold back the tide isn't going well. I understand that it can be irritating when it everyone is in some big damn hurry and that you are the only one talking sense. When I feel like this, I usually just go eat a sandwich, roll around on the grass, and kick a ball. Nothing happens here in any one minute that can't be undone ten days later if it's a mistake.
brenneman(t)(c) 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)- Yes, the poll's been up about an hour... Also, I'm not the only one. The community rejected this already, it isn't as if I am opposing something that has support outside of the usual suspects who, I am sure, would love everyone who opposes them to go an do something else while they write in all the things the community didn't want back into policy. Trollderella 00:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- You have been blocked 24 hours for violating WP:3RR, as I always do on cases like this I'll keep a watch on your talk page in case you wish to respond or challange this block. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- As one of the "usual suspects", I predict that this
willcould be acrimonious all around. I just want to make sure that you try to retain a sense of humour, and remember that there do exist other people who feel like you do, even though I'm not one of them. Fighting a battle on your own is pretty stressfull. I'm trying to teach myself to slow down, to refrain from commenting on everything, to let other people make my arguments for me. My unsolicted advice is that you do the same. Regardless of our sometimes wildly divergent views, I value your input.
brenneman(t)(c) 01:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- To prevent any chance of confusion here I figured it would be best to clarify my reasoning behind the block. I blocked you because you were the one listed on 3RR so you were the one who's diffs I investigated a long with the rest of the history. The reason I blocked was more a judgement call than anything else, first of all even though one diff was invalid since it wasn't a revert (#3 listed on the AN/3RR) you still had 4 reverts in less than 24 hours and I made the decision to block instead of just warn due to the ongoing edit warring which I felt warranted a block along with your responses and attitude towards the issue which showed a disregard towards policies against edit warring and 3RR. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Whatever. It's pretty clear that the issue is folks not liking attention to be drawn to their actions. Trollderella 02:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Most editors at one time or another get called on 3RR if for no other reason then they get caught up in the moment and forget how many edits they've actually made. Don't let it get to you though, after the block expires (in a few hours) life goes on. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- To prevent any chance of confusion here I figured it would be best to clarify my reasoning behind the block. I blocked you because you were the one listed on 3RR so you were the one who's diffs I investigated a long with the rest of the history. The reason I blocked was more a judgement call than anything else, first of all even though one diff was invalid since it wasn't a revert (#3 listed on the AN/3RR) you still had 4 reverts in less than 24 hours and I made the decision to block instead of just warn due to the ongoing edit warring which I felt warranted a block along with your responses and attitude towards the issue which showed a disregard towards policies against edit warring and 3RR. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, the poll's been up about an hour... Also, I'm not the only one. The community rejected this already, it isn't as if I am opposing something that has support outside of the usual suspects who, I am sure, would love everyone who opposes them to go an do something else while they write in all the things the community didn't want back into policy. Trollderella 00:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'd object to the use of the word "largely" in the sentance above. I have no doubts about you operating in good faith. However, it appears that this particular attempt to hold back the tide isn't going well. I understand that it can be irritating when it everyone is in some big damn hurry and that you are the only one talking sense. When I feel like this, I usually just go eat a sandwich, roll around on the grass, and kick a ball. Nothing happens here in any one minute that can't be undone ten days later if it's a mistake.
Hi! Welcome back! :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo and Notability[edit]
I wanted to note that, regarding the quote from Jimbo you have on your main user page, that he has clarified his point to state that he is definitely in favor of Notability as a criteria for deletion. See his email here. --03:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trollaxor (2nd nomination)[edit]
This is now on here. I'd love to see an impassioned defense that rested on some WP:V issues from you! I notice that you haven't been around the last few days (or at least haven't been editing). I hope that we'll see you again soon.
brenneman(t)(c) 12:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Haven't seen you in ages, since your block; here's some moral support. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging Image:Starving_child.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Starving_child.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, contact Carnildo.
Image Tagging Image:Starving child.jpg[edit]
|
This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Starving child.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. CLW 18:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Ethiopia photo[edit]
Are you the photographer of Image:Road in South Omo Ethiopia.JPG? If so, please say so. You might also want to fix the {{CC}} tag you added. Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 23:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Page name for temperature articles[edit]
To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Image Tagging for Image:Refugee_shack_being_moved_in_1907.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Refugee_shack_being_moved_in_1907.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo.
What's so difficult about it? Clinkophonist 12:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as you voted on the previous AfD, I thought I would alert you to a new AfD on 14 Year Old Girls. PT (s-s-s-s) 20:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Solidarity[edit]
Feel free to move this award anywhere you like in your userspace.
|
The Barnstar of Diligence
For your excellent, reasonable, and insightful interpretation of criteria for AFD, which have shaped my own philosophy on the subject. Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC) |
Possibly unfree Image:British passport (old style blue).jpg[edit]
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
FYI - Nominated your pic for featured-picture.[edit]
See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nude on beach.
Image tagging for Image:Topban.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Topban.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source 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. 14:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Red links[edit]
I agree with you when the link is in a paragraph in an article. However, I disagree when the page is a disambiguation page or a list page. I don't think something should be listed on a disambiguation page unless it acutally exists. -999 (Talk) 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
There is joy in mudville[edit]
That was a long Wikibreak! Although I disagree with almost everything that you've ever said, I've always respected the manner in which you've said it. I'm glad to see you around again. - 152.91.9.144 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, I think. Trollderella 19:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Masts for deletion[edit]
Hello. As the closing admin, I'm notifying the most active contributors to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of North Carolina Tower Chapel Hill, which has now been closed, in case they want to take any action about it. Best, Sandstein 12:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
May I just say that...[edit]
...your comment here was spot on? I am neither deletionist nor inclusionist, but if I was forced at banana-point to pick sides, I'd side with inclusionists, mostly because of what you term as "deletion abuse". Yay you! -- weirdoactor t|c 18:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you! Trollderella 19:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
W00t[edit]
A DRV has been opened for W00t. Please comment. Thanks! -- weirdoactor t|c 01:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
May be coming up for a VfD again - check the Talk page. You commented last time, so I thought I'd mention it. - DavidWBrooks 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks David! Trollderella 17:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge proposal.[edit]
Hi there. This is just to let you know that I found your comment on the Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings to be somewhat incivil. It is true that some of the editors are incivil, and that is why an RfC was started against one of them. Nevertheless, there are at least three or four people who have never made a single insult towards anyone, including Gravitor (even though they have been egged on by him). Your dismissive attitude for the merge proposal is somewhat troubling as well. Certainly, you can disagree with the rationale for the merger, but to say that you see no reason for it, and then fail to explain your position and call everyone childish is not helping resolve this matter. If you did not read my rationale for the merger, I copy it below. Others have given thoughtful explanations as well. Lunokhod 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing. With respect, I have read your contributions, and consider the behavior of nearly all the long term contributors to those pages to be childish in the extreme, and contribute little to sensible discussion of the issues. I have no interest in engaging in mud-slinging, the debate on that page only serves to lower the tone of the entire project. Your inability to see that any opinion but your own can have merit is part of the problem. Trollderella 04:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Midriff.jpg listed for deletion[edit]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Midriff.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. grendel|khan 19:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Globcdtv.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Globcdtv.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Topbanana.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Topbanana.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Straw poll to merge "Alternative terms for free software" to "Free and open source software"[edit]
Can you please comment at Talk:Alternative_terms_for_free_software#Survey. Thanks. --Karnesky (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For going the extra mile to add both kindness and content to Wikipedia with The Discarded Image. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC) |
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Row of refugee shacks.jpg)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Row of refugee shacks.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:British passport (old style blue).jpg}[edit]
Thank you for uploading Image:British passport (old style blue).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Height-weight proportional[edit]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Height-weight proportional, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
- nn body type
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. Oo7565 (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Devoucoux[edit]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Devoucoux, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devoucoux (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unionsoap (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Height-weight proportional[edit]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Height-weight proportional, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Height-weight proportional. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:McArabia Meal.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:McArabia Meal.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 not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kelly hi! 07:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Owen J. Baggett for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Owen J. Baggett 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/Owen J. Baggett 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 template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2012 (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) 13:05, 23 November 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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Kay Tipton[edit]
Regarding Draft:Kay_Tipton, I have been trying to gain approval for inclusion, but meeting pushback ("heroic teachers aren't notable"). I have described national-level awards with citations. Biographical data, actionable suggestions, or weighing in on notability would help. The ongoing notability debate is happening at User_talk:Kostas20142#13:51:27.2C_9_October_2017_review_of_submission_by_Pacingpoet. Thank you in advance, Pacingpoet (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Louis Cataldie for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Louis Cataldie 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/Louis Cataldie 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. Rathfelder (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The article List of places where social nudity is practiced has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
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.
The article House of Shock (TV series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unsourced since forever, links are broken
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. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
The article MegaFlyover has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Does not meet the 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. Let'srun (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)