http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&target=132.241.245.49

Welcome!

Hello, Grazon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- HappyCamper 23:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Well, thought you'd like a welcome message. Thanks for creating a user name! If you ever need anything, I'll be sure to help you out. ;-) -- HappyCamper 23:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• It's good to see you've now "joined the ranks" and have a user name. Welcome!(as Grazon) - even though you've been a contributor for quite a while already.  :) -- LiniShu 01:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi. I've deleted your article because it's a copyright violation. We cannot repost newspaper articles, it would be illegal. User:Zoe| ^(talk) 23:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. - Willmcw 09:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Entries in List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people need to have the orientation of their subjects discussed in the biographies. Please add the info there first, then we can add them to the list. Thanks, - Willmcw 04:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply

One of the main reasons for the criteria above is that it puts the burden of evaluating such a claim onto the editors of the biography, who know the subject best, rather than onto the editors of the list, who may know nothing about the subject. The editors of Rove's and Mehlman's biographies can evaluate the additions, investigate the sources, and discuss the matter with other interested editors. Thanks for working within the established consensus on this matter. Cheers, - Willmcw 06:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Get a source before adding something like that to controversial article. All the best. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Not so very long ago we met on the Erik Satie talk page - just popped in to see how you're doing. Maybe also because feeling a bit guilty of giving you a rather lighthearted advise on edits to LGBT topics. Can be a bit cumbersome, although fundamentally I believe it shouldn't be. But here's a tip that might help you: there's this WikiProject: Wikipedia:LGBT notice board, with over 40 members (several of which I know as very fine editors) - that page can surely provide some inspiration if you're looking for how to approach things. -- Francis Schonken 07:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Greetings. The article seemed to be a simple link to a photo somewhere, so I deleted it. Then I saw it was created by a registered user. If it was in the process of being expanded, please accept my apology and carry on. -- Fire Star 16:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi there:

Could you please provide a cite for the grafs you added to the general election campaign section in U.S. presidential election, 1980?

Thanks,

— DLJessup ( talk) 18:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Your edit to this site consisted of nothing more than an external link to a site advertising an upcoming showing of a klan film. As there is no context for your link within the encyclopedia article, I have reverted it. See: http://www.wnem.com/Global/story.asp?S=3980511

Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. -- File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

If you vandalize another page I'll block you from editing Wikipedia myself. This edit [1] is unacceptable. Rhobite 00:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The problem I have with the quote is it is from a magazine article Carlson had the excerpts from the Karla Faye Tucker execution issue in. The magazine is defunct, (if you click on the header link, you'll see) and we cannot provide an adequate link to the original quote. Carlson has never reproduced it in another magazine or for another publishment to my knowledge. If you can find the original source and adequately reference it or link it over the web, then fine, but in the past, no one has been able to do that...thanks for asking.-- MONGO 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I have blocked you for 24 hours owing to your 3 revert-rule violation on George W. Bush. When you return to editing, please stop revert-warring. - Splash ^talk 04:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I have blocked you for 24 hours for your vandalism of Laura Bush -- Carnildo 06:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I removed the KKK accusation from the Bob Jones Jr article because, while it may be true, the paragraph lacked context and did not present a neutral point of view. Please reread the NPOV policy - Wikipedia is not a vehicle for untempered criticism (or praise), and it is inappropriate to add provocative content such as that when it will form a large part of the article, unless it is an extremely significant event. You have a long history of apparently biased edits, which are generally removed by others; this seems like a big waste of time for you and them. It might be a good idea to avoid posting about political subjects and turn to helping with some other section of the encyclopedia . -DDerby- (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC) reply

It would be hard to fit the info into a neutral point of view until there is a substantial article on Bob Jones Jr. Allowing the KKK to post flyers was done quite a bit before the civil rights era - in fact, you may know that a current US Senator was many times more involved with the KKK than BJ Jr.

The article section on Byrd's KKK involvement is a good example of writing from a neutral point of view. The information is incorporated with the rest of his biography, his repudiation of his involvement is noted, mitigating factors were cited, and the reader has enough information to make up his own mind. In your case, you told the reader that BJ Jr helped the KKK, without either mitigating information or reasons why there would be no mitigating information. Helpful information would be: how certain people have criticized him for allowing the KKK to flyer, how he or his defenders have responded, further actions that could be seen as racist or as conciliatory toward African-Americans. Context is important, particularly because his offense could be seen as an ordinary action for a pre-1970s southerner. Not that that makes it excusable, but you need to find people who claim it's inexcusable, or else the event isn't noteworthy.

Some things I've found helpful in maintaining an NPOV are (from the WP:NPOV policy page):

• Always be factual. In this case, you were strictly factual; some editors opine on how evil a person is due to such-and-such a fact. However, being factual isn't enough - the material needs to be relevant to the article. This is the problem your edit had - it really wasn't relevant to the article without context. As I noted, it might not be relevant even with some context, but you're the researcher here, you might have information that indicates otherwise.
• Write for the enemy - when writing anything controversial, try to see it from the perspective of those who would disagree with you.
• Don't make disputes - describe them. While I don't know your intentions, your addition of the BJ Jr information could be seen as arguing that he is racist, rather than noting an argument.

-- DDerby- (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC) reply

It's great that you're interested in politics but please don't add obviously POV statements to articles. Soltak | Talk 13:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Hello: I don't understand your changing the category from "Socialist" to a non-existent category "Democratic Socialist." Can you explain?— Gaff ^ταλκ 01:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Interesting...thanks.— Gaff ^ταλκ 01:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Please don't remove speedy deletion notices unless an article very clearly doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. The article Commodore Perry Owens, because it has no information other than a URL, meets the criteria and will likely be deleted. However, you can avoid impending deletion or recreate the article in a way that it will be retained by adding to it; see How to write a great article. - DDerby- (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I didn't mean to give the impression that all you added to Ted Stevens was a bunch of quotes. But a transcript is no better than quotes. Wikipedia isn't meant to contain the important things a person says (otherwise the article would be way too long) - it's meant to summarize their positions and people's response to them. I won't revert it again today because I follow the 1 revert rule, but I don't think it's a good addition to the article. -- DDerby- (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Talk:Scott Dyleski, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! -- Nlu 05:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi Grazon - Could you slip over to Talk:List of Eagle Scouts and say something about why Mormon scouts should be identified as Mormon in a list of scouts, please? It sounds like there's apparently something about being a Mormon Eagle Scout that's a lot different from being a scout of other beliefs or something. Your explanation may help to cut down on the ongoing revert war. Thanks! -- Amoore 16:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't think Wesley's position on slavery should be included in the article Richard Allen (reverend) (see my argument in the talk page).-- DDerby- (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Please use edit summaries detailing the nature of your article edits.
• What does this [2] have to do with the article? The article is about the song, not about funny German names.
• Thanks for re-adding and citing the Sally Hemings information.
• Please provide a reason for reverting reverts - preferably in the talk page. I've been lazy recently and have been arguing in edit summaries instead of the talk page; I'll try to be more concientious in the future.

You're apparently a good researcher, and can be a good editor when you're careful to be relevant. But please try to make sure it is clear how the information you add information is relevant, include the info in the appropriate part of the article, and write carefully. -- DDerby- (talk) 09:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply

me too :)-- DDerby- (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC) reply

This is a good example of an addition out of context: you don't say who is saying it is purely religious, nor what is meant by the term "purely religious". In fact, the assertion wasn't that it was purely religious, but that it was religious.

Adding material from your own point of view, instead of a neutral point of view, is still a big problem and resulting in bad edits. You are adding material to attack various conservative figures, which seesm to be to be calculated to make them look bad. I could mention American media figures who have wished for massive destruction in America, but here's a more minor, subtle example. This doesn't explain what the Slate writer meant by "toxic". It needs an explanation and without it looks a lot like an attack. The mention of the $9mil request is certainly worthy of inclusion, but you should give more details such as the name of President Bongo. Please, please be very careful about editing from your point of view; I would even suggest again that you refrain from making edits about politics as you tend to make a lot of POV edits there. -- DDerby- (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Can I suggest a reading list to reduce actual or perceived POV additions?

• Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial
• Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles - a lot of good stuff here, especially "attribute assertions"

Try to avoid these words:

• Power word
• Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms
• Wikipedia:Words to avoid

Thanks -- DDerby- (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply

One more thing...no link spamming, please. You can't promote most websites here. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 01:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply

While we're at it: Adding your POV to existing articles in the form of misleading information will get you blocked, possibly banned. - Lucky 6.9 01:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Please. Avoid the POV angles and keep the edit summaries civil. That's the reason I've reverted some your edits. I'm so conservative I make Ronald Reagan look like Che Guevara, but I would never dream of pushing my political viewpoint on liberal-biased articles. That's part of what makes the site work. OK? You're entitled to your opinion and I'll defend it to the death, but that's in the real world, not here. Thanks again. - Lucky 6.9 03:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply

LOL! My best friend is an arch-liberal. We have never had a fight in nearly thirty years. We have, however, cracked each other up with our viewpoints. He gave me eight years of grief under Clinton after I gave him eight years of grief under Reagan.  :) - Lucky 6.9 03:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Good question regarding Bush I. Things were kind of quiet under him. Lots of stuff happening under both Clinton and Reagan. Funny thing, we don't really talk about the current administration much. Might have to go and push a few of his buttons and see wwhat develops. - Lucky 6.9 19:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I've opened up a Request for comment on you at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grazon in order to get outside opinions on your edits.

You may respond at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grazon (discussion goes at the talk page). For details on the RFC process, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. -- DDerby- (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I noticed your comments to Kwh and would like to heartily endorse his reply. The Request for Comment process is meant to make you a better editor. I don't believe all of your edits are bad - you can be a good editor when you're careful and when you minimize your POV. So if you have a problem with the evidence on the RFC, could you respond on the discussion page?

Note that the RFC process can't make you do anything. However, not responding to it, or ignoring its advice, may be grounds for an arbitration committee review, which could result in binding action such bans from editing certain articles. If you'd like to resolve other editors' problems with your edits, but don't like the RFC process, you might see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for alternatives such as mediation. -- DDerby- (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Just a note about your recent contributions to the Bill O'Reilly article - we're having a problem over there where everything boneheaded the guy says is getting added to the article, making it unreasonably long and filled with non-encyclopedic information.

You're welcome to join us on the article's talk page, where remedies are being debated, but in the meantime just try and make sure whatever you're adding to the article would really be relevent to a succint overview of the man's career. Plastic Editor

did you intend California Militia to be a redirect? if so, the correct way to make it is #redirect[[United States National Guard]]-- DDerby- (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Please read and follow the policy against personal attacks. -- DDerby- (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Links and quotes, by themselves, don't make good article sections.-- DDerby- (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Put the link into the article to cite your claim, don't put it on my talk page. Dannybu2001 00:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't see any sign that you were blocked by anyone. special:List of blocked IP addresses and usernames and special:Block log. Can you log in and edit your own talk page? Conventional blocks should allow you to do both. Perhaps there's a problem with your cookies? - Willmcw 06:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hi Grazon. No problem about the sig. Regarding the links in the Indian cavalry article, the link to lewrockwell.com was already there, but it was a bare http://... type of link. All I did was convert it to a [http://... Title] link, and I just used the actual title of the page on that site to give people a better idea of what they'd get if they followed the link. But it's a good point that the title itself may not be NPOV, and I'll go back and take another look and think about what to call it. -- DavidConrad 04:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Do you really think Wikipedia needs a mention of everything O'Reilly has said that wasn't true? -- DDerby- (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

that would be fine if this were a discussion forum, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please stop trying to use it like one. -- DDerby- (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

In a discussion on articles for deletion, a result of "no consensus" doesn't mean the article should stay as it is, only that it shouldn't be deleted. Articles can be made into redirects without a vote. Of course, if there's obviously opposition to the move, it should be discussed, but the discussion in this case supported a merge. In fact, I'm suprised that that the editor didn't call it a "merge" result here.

I personally think it's efficient to combine small articles, such as those on the animals of Skull Island, into one article. No information is lost, it's just put somewhere where it is in context, and with redirects, searchers can find the it easily. -- DDerby- (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Like the poster mentioned about your edits to the O'Reilly article, you don't need to mention everything Cavuto has said especially if it is without context in the article. The goal is to create a biographical article on him, not a database of his occasional punditry. -- Zookman12 23:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Hello. Please see my comments regarding your edits of Brit Hume at Talk:Brit Hume. Thank you. Collingsworth 19:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

NESA administers the DESA and no, I do not think it's a politically motivated award. The criteria calls for exceptional achievement in one's career AND community involvement and the DESA recipients meet that (these guys are politicians, astronauts, business executives, military heros, scientists, etc for the most part). Over the past weekend I did make a List of Distinguished Eagle Scouts and a category for them. However, I also feel it is quite convenient for the DESA tag to be on the List of Eagle Scouts page so that people don't have to switch to the other page (it only takes four letters to put it there). Whether or not you agree with a certain person being a DESA recipient is not in my control. If you would like to nominate someone, it's not that hard to do--I did that once and the nomination was approved for the person; not all nominations are approved. See the NESA website at [3] at look in the DESA section. If you still want the DESA tag removed from the Eagle list, I'd suggest you start a thread on the article's page to get a consensus so another edit war isn't started--there's already been too much of that over who is or isn't on the list, but I think that may be settled by the recent comments on the talk page. Rlevse 23:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You've violated the WP:3RR on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/F-J. Please do not keep reverting. The list has a clear criteria. Please add a specific description of Paris Hilton as a bisexual to that biography before adding her name to the list. - Will Beback 21:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if this falls under WP:3RR but it IS edit warring which is very much a bad thing. This can lead to blocks and article protection, all of which are very bad. Furthermore remember you need to WP:CITE as we do not accepte original research, this is a strict policy in article writing.-- Tznkai

http://www.roadode.com/

the 1970 Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, they conclude that there is no relationship between exposure to erotic material and subsequent behavior.

http://www.amazoncastle.com/feminism/porn.shtml

Please stop your constant POV attacks on the List of famous gay, lesbian, or bisexual people. You have consistently been warned of this. If you procede, I'll see to it that you are temporarily barred from posting there. If you are unable to post without inflicting your own agenda, then please stop posting altogether. ExRat 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Are there news links to their State of the Union address response? I am curious, since the article needs expansion. -- Habap 05:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Rory 0 96 03:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply

You sent me a message.

I don't understand it.

grazon 17:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I was using WP:AWB to substitute templates, and that message was generated to let you know that I substituted templates on your page. -- Rory 0 96 19:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC) reply

If an editor makes a legal threat against another, or posts nothing but useless insults such as the one you mentioned, then I have no problem blocking them permanently. Thanks for the approval.-- MONGO 03:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC) reply

The Medal of Honor is the highest award by the U.S. Military to a living or posthumous recipient. I have never heard of this "Gold Star" that you speak of, nor can I find a reference to it on wikipedia. I have reverted your edit. -- rogerd 03:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I have reverted the changes you made to this page, as they deleted the material and this material was put here after a lot of debate on the talk page of the B-P page and, if I recall correctly, on the WikiProject Scouting pages. If you want this to to be deleted and be replaced by a redirect, I really do think that you you need to convince people who reached a different consensus. It is not intending to replace "Amazon.com" but to deal with some controversal views about B-P in a NPOV away outside the main article on his life. Regards, -- Bduke 05:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I placed a disputed tag on Satar Jabar, because I'm not sure that the prisoner in the photo is actually Satar Jabar. You can check out the talk page for my reasoning. -- Descendall 05:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC) reply

A question has been raised at Category talk:Anti-Iraq war Veterans about this partof the category criteria.

• This list may also include immediate family members of individuals who died while in the armed forces, or who were killed by terrorists on 9/11.

I agree with another editor that it is an inappropriate extension of a clear category. If I don't hear an objection I'll go ahead and remove it. - Will Beback 02:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what to think about this. What do you think?

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=148145&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

grazon 03:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely a worthwhile step. I don't know that it's worth writing about in the article, though. Maybe if it becomes a trend, but banning five members from the forum isn't all that big of an event. Rogue 9 04:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC) reply

User:S9arthur has been controlling the Melungeon article forever now; perhaps you should see that editor's talk page. S/he believes that s/he is endowed with all the knowledge in the world and others have none. Know-it-alls spoil the community purpose of Wikipedia, where we are all supposed to contribute and not own. IP Address 22:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if you were ever gone, but it's nice to see this username appearing again. As before, please do not get stressed out over edits, or push a POV. We're all just here to verifiably summarize reliable source using the neutral point of view. As long as we try to stick to that we're doing good. Cheers, - Will Beback 07:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Xemoi 21:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

You reinstated highly controversial and UNCITED disputed info from List of Virgins and gave only "work in progress" as your edit summary. What exactly does this mean? How long are other editors to wait for you to provide cited sources for these entries you have insisted be returned to the article NOW? Why can't you wait until you have your facts straight and sources at hand before you reinstate them? wikipediatrix 19:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I formatted article in accordance with generally accepted biography wiki pages, compleate with date of birth, table of contents, and requiring references for quotes and statements. Please feel free to update information in this format. If you feel page should be reverted to older version, please say why on talk page of that article Hackajar 06:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you have some reason for preferring "Veterans against the Iraq War" to "Anti-Iraq War veterans"? I don't have a preference, I just want to get some change through, because the capitalization in the present name is gratingly incorrect. If you could either restore the speedy-renaming request template, or replace it with one for "Veterans against..." while also modifying the entry at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Speedy, that would be good. Kalkin 22:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

When creating the discussion page for an article's AfD, please use the {{ afd2}} template to write the nomination. Don't write it in any other format, as you did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manzanita Village. Possibly because of the lack of a section edit link, it attracted only 2 comments, and forces me to relist it.

As a reminder, the afd2 template code is written as follows:

{{ subst:afd2 | pg = Page name | text = Deletion nomination text. --~~~~ }}

(Replace the italic text as appropriate.) This is the only thing you need to write on the nomination page. Regards, Kimchi.sg 14:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Grazon,
Please note that Patrick Murphy (politician) has been nominated for an AfD. I noticed that you started the article, so please add your voice to the discussion. -- Asbl 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Portal:Current events/United States? – Ch acor 02:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, Grazon, you stated in your edit summary of your latest edit that "[the section]'s going to grow so we should give it room." I think that the section should not be included unless there is much more information about the person who took the hostages. There is already sufficient information regarding the man at the introduction of the article and in the sections following. May I ask what your motives are for including this section even though there is no particular reason for it? Thanks! ;) — Webdinger ^{BLAH | SZ} 03:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

What the fuck? Could you get any more POV than that? Derex 01:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

We had extensive discussions on the appropriate name. For you to roll in there without such much as a mention and move it is absurd. You also dislinked the talk page. If you think that's going to stand, you're out of your freaking mind. Derex 01:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)=whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he's calling foley a pred! reply

I have reported your action as a BLP violation. By the way, I'm hardly a conservative apologist. Derex 01:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Wow you're a conservative apologist and you've reported me to the teacher how cool of you.

Please stop. You need a consensus on the page before you move it. Furthermore, you messed up the move and thus didn't preserve the history with your move. If you continue you may be blocked. JoshuaZ 01:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. also, please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~ . Thanks. JoshuaZ 01:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I checked and only found four news items with that term. Too soon, maybe it will still catch on. My favorite is "2006 congressional pederasty coverup". Haiduc 01:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You know, I'd just as see this whole thing take down every Republican in Congress. But, an article that has even a hint of spin is an article that will be completely ignored by everyone but those already convinced. Let the facts speak for themselves. Grazon, you're an idiot. I mean that with all my heart. Derex 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

sticks and stones Repug now why don't you be a dear and go back to playing with you Ann Coulter dolls? grazon 01:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's making my (future) user page highlights. I'll be thrilled to point at it next time someone accuses me of liberal bias. Derex 01:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

"thrilled"? lol grazon 01:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Check it out. Derex 01:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I did and was amazed. But we can't write an article based on people's blogs. Haiduc 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for experimenting with the page Mark Foley scandal on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. -- Omicronpersei8 ( talk) 08:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Can you please fix your signature so that it points to your user page rather than nothing at all? Thanks Glen 09:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Please do not deliberately introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Darrell Anderson. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

The article itself says he is an anti-war activist and this information is well cited from large respected media sources. Please do not remove information such as a category again when it is factually and verifiably correct. You are mistaken, but if you have any information available regarding him not being an anti-war activist please bring it to the attention on the discussion page of the article. There is a discussion topic about your edits on the article aswell. Qrc2006 03:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It doesn't matter if he is a consciencious objector or not. The issue at hand is whether nor not he is an Anti-Iraq War Activist the category is regarding Anti Iraq-War Activists and the criteria for inclusion is whether or not they are verifiably anti-Iraq war activists. Anderson is an Anti-Iraq War activist, it says so in the article and it says so in the media, he has said so himself, this is very well referanced in the article, and what you personally consider to be "lumped together" is irrelevant here. It matters whats being reported in newspapers, journals, and his (Anderon's) statements, not your truthy assumptions.

Furthermore i have noticed you have a history of violating the three revert rule, and being blocked for not cooperating, being disruptive and dismissive of precedant and consensus; please try and cooperate. If you have legitimate concerns and can find a credible souce that says he is not an anti-Iraq war activist please bring it to the attention of the Darell Anderson article discussion page. Thank you.

Qrc2006 19:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Your recent edit summary to Darrell Anderson states: "if the media said pissing on an electric fence felt good it doesn't mean it's true". However, frustrating as it sometimes seem, WP:V and WP:RS clearly state "Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth". wikipediatrix 19:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Please stop. If you continue to blank or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Darrell Anderson, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Your edits are unnacceptable, as is your language. "if the media said pissing on an electric fence felt good it doesn't mean it's true" [5]

If you continue to remove content you will be blocked, again. Qrc2006 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi. I reverted back your deletion of the American Atheist category for the Gene Roddenberry article. Someone disagreed with the deletion, so I did a Google search and got over 15,000 hits with "+Roddenberry +atheist". He's on alot of atheist lists and he is even described as an atheist by the British Humanist Association. Some view him as having been an atheist, others as a humanist, and many as both. So, to be comprehensive, both the Humanist and Atheist categories should remain. Gaheris 23:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC) reply

* A) Believe that the Iraq War was illegal and/or immoral from the beginning; or

• B) Believe that the Iraq War is being waged incompetently or immorally, and have become publicly known as critics of the war or the justifications used to launch it. [6]

i will block you if you violate the 3rr rule dude. he clearly fits the criteria for teh category. if hes against all wars, well then hes against this one two, quite vocally actually, and he fits the criteria for inclusion into that category, which is what matters here. please try and understand, and be helpful and constructive, or i will block you like you have been blocked in the past. your are removing content. your behavior looks to me as if its leading to a permanent block. Qrc2006 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to David Koresh, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Izaakb 18:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You *are* aware that the ENTIRE text of what you reverted back from the redirect IS already listed VERBATIM in Adolf Hitler's medical health , yes?

If you really think that a pathetic note from some hardly verifiable person is enough to make an article over, I don't care, but please do not remove the link to the main article. -- In ur base, killing ur dorfs 00:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Adding POV material into an article is considered vandalism. You may not have been aware of the POV nature of the text, so I am asking you here to desist adding it in. Doing it from your IP isn't acceptable. --- J.S ( t| c) 05:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ${\displaystyle Insertformulahere}$ reply

My apologies for having removed your work but I can't seem to post anywhere else.

I ask that The sheer volume I have contributed by taken into account as well as the amount of wikistalking I have endured.

grazon 07:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(Transcribed by 12.72.70.78 23:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC).) reply

This is your LAST WARNING! Your userpage is now all that you are allowed to edit. IF YOU BLANK IT, THEN YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FROM EVEN THAT. — 12.72.70.78 23:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I note that you were warned against blanking your user talk page when you were editing (and blocked) as Devilmaycares. — 12.72.70.78 01:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

“

I ask that The sheer volume I have contributed by taken into account

”

Sheer volume is not a good metric for contribution. At least one editor has claimed that he has yet to find anything or merit in your edits as Devilmaycares, and their sheer volume is substantial. If you want to persuade the admins to restore you on the basis of off-setting contribution then perhaps you ought to assemble a list of links to diffs which have merit, and show that these are the preponderate majority of all your edits, across all of your aliases. Good luck. — 12.72.70.78 01:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Calm down 12.72.70.78... It's over. --- J.S ( t| c) 08:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Stop. You cannot discern my emotional state. I'm calm, and I'm giving him honest advice. It doesn't seem to me that he has much hope of recovery here, but if he has any then it would be exactly by doing as I suggest. — 12.72.71.164 09:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I dunno... bold all caps sentences seemed to imply to me you were getting worked up. *shrug* sorry for my mistake. --- J.S ( t| c) 15:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Bold, all-caps, and italics. But

• in order to make it easier for him to notice the assertion later,
• in order to make it harder for him to deny having seen it later, and
• in order to make it stand out should this matter be reviewed by an admin later.

Grazon has, in the past, justified edits, been rebutted, and then weeks later justified them the same way without addressing the rebuttal. One explanatory model would have him reading the rebuttal about the time that it were made, but just malevolently pretending not to have seen it; another would instead have him not ever looking for the rebuttal. And, meantime, as you may infer from things that I've said elsewhere to you, I've had multiple experiences of admins not seeing all the puzzle pieces.

It is hard to believe that Grazon can assemble a list of diffs that will vindicate his restoration; but, unless someone has tried, we cannot know that it is truly impossible. And, if he tries and fails, perhaps he will be more effectively confronted with what he has done. He is pursuing a degree in history; he needs, then, to change his ethos, for the sake of everyone including himself. And perhaps reviewing his diffs will help him to see his ethos for what it has been. — 12.72.72.158 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I never said I disagree with you... But when I saw the histroy of this article I saw a flurry of edits and caps-lock text. Often in the context of an online discussion ALL CAPS BOLD is usualy associated with yelling and anger. I guess I was wrong. --- J.S ( t| c) 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, as to the flurry of edits, they were:

• Unblank his user talk page.
• Transcribe the content he made after he'd blanked his talk page.
• Warn him against blanking his talk page.
• Move tag out of his reach.
• Note (In the warning section) that he had been similarly warned about a previous blanking.
• Note just how similar the previous blanking had been.
• Respond to his “sheer volume” plea, showing its inadequacy but pointing him in the direction of an alternative course.

I think that, in hindsight, you'll see that as a fair characterization of the flurry, and (whatever your position on bold capital letters) agree that it was reasonable to do each of these things in some manner. — 12.72.72.118 14:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Please note that I have just nominated Mark Foley Scandal for Featured Article status. You can find comments about its nomination here. I am leaving this message because you have significantly contributed to the article. Thesmothete 02:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Dear sir or madam

According to Wikipedia policies using of a sock puppets is discouraged. (See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.) Also, any user should modify only his user page (except when blocking a user indefinitely.) I recommend that you stop contributing through IPs and choose one account and report the others to be blocked. (See: Wikipedia:User page.). Thank you.

-- Meno25 04:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, I hope you are still checking this. I am doing research into neutrality in Wikipedia. One article I am looking at is the entry for Stephen Colbert (character). From what I can tell about the history, it appears you were the one who created the page. If you have a chance, please leave me a message on my talk page and let me know what motivated you to create this specific entry. Thanks -- Librarygurl 10, May 2007

A "{{ prod}}" template has been added to the article Mary Beth Harrell, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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.  DangerousNerd   talk 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello. Why is you blocked, poor editor> I hope you get unblocked soon. Randalph P. Williams 11:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC) reply

A {{ prod}} template has been added to the article Karen Otter, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{ db-author}}. Fabrictramp 21:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Veteran with disputed status, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Veteran with disputed status satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veteran with disputed status and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Veteran with disputed status during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Crockspot 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated Jay Fawcett, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Fawcett and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 19:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated Dan Dodd, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Dodd and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 20:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated Rick Bolanos, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Bolanos and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 21:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Another editor has added the {{ prod}} template to the article Andrew Horne, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{ prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot ( talk) 20:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated Andrew Horne, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Horne and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 18:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I have nominated Jim Nelson, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Nelson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Blueboy 96 17:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Perry Samuel, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. B. Wolterding ( talk) 19:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I have nominated Arjinderpal Sekhon, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjinderpal Sekhon (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 11:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Grazon! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 944 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Mort Meier - Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 04:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The article Mort Meier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

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. Jerzeykydd ( talk) 13:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The article John Rinaldi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

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. Jerzeykydd ( talk) 15:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The article Dennis Spivack has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

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. Jerzeykydd ( talk) 15:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Perry Samuel 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/Perry Samuel 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. Zujua ( talk) 09:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Murtha. Since you had some involvement with the Murtha redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. –  Arms & Hearts ( talk) 22:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article W. Walter Menninger 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/W. Walter Menninger 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. Boleyn ( talk) 17:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mario Villian Mouser. Since you had some involvement with the Mario Villian Mouser redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 14:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dave Mejias 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/Dave Mejias 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. GPL93 ( talk) 21:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wetasaurus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 25#Wetasaurus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 21:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The article Wild West Tech has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable sourcing found

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?)} 01:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply

–  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Dan Stover has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable candidate for political office

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. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Mary Beth Harrell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable political candidate.

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. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Thahe Mohammed Sabbar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable individual, fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Harry Samit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable FBI agent, only "considered notable" for his small role in 9/11

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. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply