I'm back.

Hi Unschool! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, — DerHexer  (Talk) 23:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eric Menyuk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Dear Unschool. I hope you are fine! Its only now that I found your message on my user talk page. Its so nice that you didn't forget me! I really appreciate that a lot. Im actually not doing very well, but I try not to give up. Unfortunately I have not been able to work on too many articles for Wikipedia in the last few years. But probably I will find the time and energy to start to write again. Best wishes, -- Rectilinium '♥' 03:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pamela Fish 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/Pamela Fish 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. - Mr X 13:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin. Since you had some involvement with the Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar ( talk) 04:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{ User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much for the Barnstar! During the last couple of years, I have been so busy at work and home that I haven't contributed regularly, but retirement is approaching, and I will have more free time. Mgrē@sŏn ( Talk) 03:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC) reply

You really deserve it. If there was a JaxBarnstar, you'd have a page full. Un sch ool 03:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC) reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smalltown DJs (2nd nomination). Notifying editors who have participated in a previous discussion about the same topic or similar topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smalltown DJs - The Magnificentist 10:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the invite, but that was eight years ago, and I am not a regular at AfD discussions, and having no knowledge of the topic, would unlikely be able to make an intelligent contribution towards a decision. Un sch ool 15:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. Went to view your changes to cultural appropriation and misclicked. Sorry. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Good to hear from you! Sure I remember you. Hope you are doing well. Masterhatch ( talk) 00:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I've been here a few years and have never figured out how editors manage to edit the lede as a section "top". How do you do that? Slight Smile 23:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC) reply

All I remember was that long ago—more than ten years ago, they made this possible, but you had to change something in your settings to enable it. Don't know if that's still how it works. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Un sch ool 13:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

It's something. More than what I knew before. Thanks. Slight Smile 13:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the comment and the entry on this. I had written this when the US Democrats had taken over Congress following the 2006 US election. I had posted it on my User Page only to have it deleted by User:Rootology in 2008 who was a Barack Obama supporter. This was a copy of a letter I sent to my then-Congressman Jim Marshall (Democrat) of Georgia's 8th Congressional District in July 2007. I have the Word document of the file and the body of the copy is shown below.

Dear Mr. Marshall:

Regarding your May 21, 2007 letter that I received from you regarding the Fairness Doctrine, I strongly disagree with you on this because of the words of some members of your own Democratic Party in the United States. Who cannot forget that during the 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary on Governor Dr. Howard Dean (now your party’s chairman) continuing calling “… to take the country back from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity” and “… that he was going to shut down FOX News” which some people implied to be all of FOX (FX, FOX Sports Net, SPEED TV, FOX Movie Channel, and network FOX)? Who cannot forget that in March 2004 on ESPN’s Around the Horn that Chicago Sun-Times sport columnist Jay Mariotti calling for the stoppage of FOX Sports Net? Who cannot forget the lie that University of Southern California law professor (and former 1988 Dukakis campaign manager) Susan Estrich lying to WGST-AM 640 talk show host Denny Schaffer on the air on October 27, 2006 that Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-New York) would not bring back the Fairness Doctrine? Who cannot forget that during a radio broadcaster’s convention in Memphis on January 13, 2007 that Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) calling for the return of the Fairness Doctrine? Who cannot forget that when Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez closed down Radio Caracas TV on May 27, 2007 that the American left-wing blogs of DailyKos.com and DemocraticUnderground.com both cheered Chavez’s actions? Who cannot forget the calls during this past week by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California), and Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California), Barbara Boxer (D-California), Hillary Clinton (D-New York), Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), or John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) to reinstate this during the week of June 25, 2007? As an American I cannot. Do you want to know why they want the Fairness Doctrine returned? It is because of power and a claim of “imbalance” within the press. That sir is a lie when you consider that there are already government-sponsored radio and television programs in this country called National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting System. Additionally, in a poll conducted by MSNBC, a decidedly liberal cable news network along with the original Cable News Network (CNN), that donations from 143 journalists from American Federal Election Commission (FEC) data found that from 2004 to March 31, 2007 that 125 donated to either your party or to liberal causes, 16 donated to Republican or conservative causes, and two donated to both. Let us also not forget that the media in this country lean very heavily to the Democrats in terms of voting. It was a relief that the Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987 because it paved the way for more information being out in the open for people to both access and use, including the growth of cable television including MSNBC, FOX News Channel, FOX Sports Net, C-SPAN 2, C-SPAN 3, and others; talk radio where there are now over 2000 stations, satellite radio such as Sirius and XM, and the Internet, including Yahoo!, Google, and Wikipedia (Disclosure: I am Wikipedia User Miller17CU94, one of the top 1000 editors in the English Wikipedia as of May 27, 2007 at #988. Link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of Wikipedians by number of edits). How many times have you been able to appear on WGST-AM 640 in Atlanta or WMAC-AM 940 in Macon during your term as Congressman as a result of the abolition of the Fairness Doctrine? It is obvious sir that your party’s call for the reinstitution of this is nothing more than censorship. Despite claims from your leaders and most of the mainstream press of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN, the American people are not stupid and can see this issue as plain as day as being nothing more than censorship. What talk radio does is gives the average American a right and an avenue to discuss issues of the day, especially controversial ones like abortion, the Iraq War, the war on terrorism, religion, gay marriage, culture, the state of the country, and the state of the world. This is something that we could only do in private and in the local community during the Fairness Doctrine’s reign of terror of 1949-87. As you can see, it allowed for information to be exposed and reviewed, something that our Founding Fathers wanted when they created the Constitution in 1787. It is unfortunate that there are people issues who do not want issues discussed at all because they are enlightened. Let us also not forget that despite the Pence Amendment‘s overwhelming passing which you voted, it was only for one year. Additionally, there are calls by fellow Democrats John Dingell and John Conyers, Jr. (both from Michigan) to combine the “Fairness Doctrine” and the “Hate-crimes” legislation that would make any one from talk radio a criminal (and I can assume that would be their listeners as well). That was a tactic that former President Bill Clinton tried to pull in the wake of the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Alfred C. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in blaming talk radio for Timothy McVeigh’s actions. All that is are people who are arrogant and close-minded in their views and unable to see things for what they are instead of what they want it to be. Imposing the “Fairness Doctrine” would be a mistake for it would shut down many ways people would get part of their daily information. It would also send a chilling effect throughout the media, including print, broadcast (radio and television), and online that the government could do that next. We already know that there are many people within your party who would like to get not just FOX News taken off of the air, but all of FOX. It would not surprise me that some members of your party are beginning to pressure NFL Commissioner Roger Goodall, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, NASCAR President Mike Helton, and NCAA President Miles Brand to renege on long-term contracts to host sporting events on network FOX, on FOX Sports Net, or on SPEED TV. Do you want to see America’s Most Wanted, COPS, or The Simpsons off of the air? Will you go to the internet and try to restrict the usage of people to certain websites, like the Chinese have done to Google, Yahoo!, or Wikipedia? For the good of the country and for the good of Free speech, oppose the reinstitution of the “Fairness Doctrine” at all costs. The genie is out of the bottle, Mr. Marshall. Good luck trying to put it back in. A copy of the body of this letter will be put on my user page in Wikipedia under the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miller17CU94/In defense of free speech

This is for you and anyone else on the Internet to look if they choose.

Enjoy for your reading pleasure. Chris ( talk) 18:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Very nice. Well done. And thank you. Un sch ool 18:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Nice to see you back editing ;) œ ™ 08:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC) reply

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Unschool|<font color="52A249">'''Un'''</font>]][[User talk:Unschool|<font color="23CE40">'''sch'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Unschool|<font color="7ED324">'''ool'''</font>]] : Un sch ool

to

[[User:Unschool|<b style="color: #52A249;">Un</b>]][[User talk:Unschool|<b style="color: #23CE40;">sch</b>]][[Special:Contributions/Unschool|<b style="color: #7ED324;">ool</b>]] : Un sch ool

— Anomalocaris ( talk) 06:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Un sch ool 17:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you for taking care of it! — Anomalocaris ( talk) 21:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stanford Achievement Test Series 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/Stanford Achievement Test Series 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. Sandstein 20:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

after getting a "thanks" from you for an edit at Cultural appropriation and was wondering if perhaps we had crossed somewhere during my decade of working with homeschoolers, pushing, where appropriate, the unschooling method. That was at Clonlara School (hmmm, I was expecting a red link?). Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 18:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply

No, I had not heard of Clonlara until reading your post here. My wife and I started unschooling around 1990 because we were unhappy with the "choices" in our town located in the Deep South. Read John Holt's Teach Your Own and I was converted. I'm a bit less passionate today than I was back then, but still think unschooling is the single best way to teach most kids. Un sch ool 20:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I too read Holt, assigned reading for me at work. I homeschooled one daughter until she decided that she would rather go to public school. One town over from where we lived, so that's what we did. Nice meeting you, Carptrash ( talk) 22:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your note. It's always hard to know what usages are "generally accepted". To obsolete has been used for some time in a variety of contexts:

1915, legal -- [it] practically obsoletes the Denver Narcotic law

1930, advertising -- SPRING-AIR supplants — and completely obsoletes — the old-style mattress.

1938, advertising -- the ingenuity of today obsoletes the ...

1967, congressional testimony -- We are not going to ... obsolete the freeways,

2007, technical -- This edition of The Unicode Standard, Version 5.0, supersedes and obsoletes all previous versions of the standard.

... but it may still sound strange to some ears. I am not 100% certain that I like it, but I do in general like concision. In fact, if you hadn't based your edit on the claim that it wasn't recorded in dictionaries, but rather on "better style", I would have hesitated. -- Macrakis ( talk) 15:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Yeah, sometimes recognizing common usages can be difficult, but I think your examples actually support my original point. Your only examples within the lifetime of 90%+ of readers are from a 50-year old congressional testimony (congressional hearings are rife with vocabulary unknown to the common man) and a technical manual. I love the 1930s examples; they fit in perfectly with the between-the-wars attempts of marketers to "modernize" their work (though this was probably more common in the 1920s than '30s).

Still, for the reasons I gave already, I support leaving your edit in there. Un sch ool 17:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I gave the early 20th century examples to show historical depth. It's true that I may be influenced by usage in modern technical manuals, but then one technology obsoleting another sounds fairly technical.... "obsoletes" [1] [2]

But overall, I think you're right stylistically. I will change it back to your "renders obsolete". -- Macrakis ( talk) 17:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Are you always so damned agreeable?

:-) Un sch ool 17:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC) reply

I try to be reasonable, especially with reasonable people. Though the real trick on WP is to be even more reasonable with unreasonable people. -- Macrakis ( talk) 21:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing— Steak burger—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Macrakis ( talk) 15:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, Unschool,

Thanks for creating Widmar v. Vincent! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

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

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

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

Boleyn ( talk) 20:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your note. I am actually well-aware of the need to improve the article, but I won't be undertaking it myself. It's not like it's an AfD candidate. I simply came across a red link to it today and was shocked to see that such a significant case had not been given an article yet. So my only purpose was to get it started, and hopefully, in time, more competent people than I can fix it up. Ten or twelve years ago, when I was an active editor, I would have handled it, but I honestly don't even remember how things work around here any more, what with my ten edits a year. But thanks for tagging it--that might help. Un sch ool 23:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Margaret Sullivan a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Margaret Sullivan (bureaucrat). This is known as a " cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Gorthian ( talk) 03:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I have reverted you on Novak Djokovic. Please do not give diffs which border with personal attacks aimed at other editors. [3] The section itself fails fails per WP:Criticism and can't be placed in Wiki voice. It's also covered per WP:BLP which means that far more quaility sources are needed for the inclusion in the article body. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Unschool/Sandbox, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. 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.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Singularity42 ( talk) 19:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I tried to move this to userspace for you, since that appeared to be your intention - but you have so many sandboxes already there was no where I could move it to... Singularity42 ( talk) 19:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Ah, it has been so many years since I've used a Sandbox that I didn't know there was a limit (there certainly didn't used to be) and I don't know how to find these many others that you found. Any advice? Un sch ool 20:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

There isn't a limit. I had tried to move to your Sandbox, which had already been created. I tried for Sandbox2 and Sandbox3, same result. Then I moved onto other tasks and had to tag it for a test page. According to this you have nine subpages of your page. Singularity42 ( talk) 21:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your help; I think I've figured it out now. Un sch ool 23:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition February–July 1941 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym ( talk) 07:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Unannounced Olympiads and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5#Unannounced Olympiads until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Tartar Torte 01:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your edit at LGBT. Unfortunately, regardless how certain you are about what you heard Justin Trudeau say, we have a published source that says differently. You may, in fact, be right about Trudeau's quotation, but the only way to get that fixed, is to find some other reliable sources that agree with your reading of it, and include them. And given that there is already one source that says the opposite, I'd say you need at *least* two citations to reliable sources that agree with you. C'mon, you're a long-term, experienced editor here; you don't need me to remind you of verifiability and sourcing. Mathglot ( talk) 17:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The article Katie Herzog has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Previously deleted due to lack of reliable sources, no new sources to establish notability.

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. Rab V ( talk) 02:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Katie Herzog requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Herzog. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~ GB fan 10:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply