! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
Always sign your posts on talk pages!
That way, others will know who left which comments.
I see that you just contributed an article on Wayne Wheler. Thank you. It is standard format in this encyclopedia for people's names not to have quotes around them (see Benjamin Franklin for exmaple). I can move the article for you quite easily. My other concern, however, is a legal issue. This article is quite long and is unformatted (ie it has no links). That may be because you have yet to put in links for keywords and other sylistic issues (which I would gladly help you with). However, many people submit unformatted text because they are simply copying and pasting content from another webiste. I couldn't find any website with the content you just uploaded, so I was wondering if you could tell me whether you copied that material (as copied material must be deleted for copyright reasons). Thanks! This link isBroken01:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Just so you know, a redirect should not have any title. By placing a line of text above the #REDIRECT [[link]] operation, the software does not pick it up as a redirect. You may want to preview your pages before you save them, just to make sure everything's working properly. Also, article titles are case sensitive. So, Alcoholic beverage control states and Alcoholic Beverage Control States don't link to the same place. Thanks! -Satori(talk)16:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright
If you indeed have copyright ownership over articles at http://www2. potsdam.edu/ hansondj/ then of course you may donate it to wikipedia. Understand that that means other people will be able to use it (read
Template:1911
. Cheers. 16:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
ah silly me. I read your message to quickly. You want to know how you can fix
WP:CP. Sadly that page has a constant backlog. I would remove the copyvio notice on the page and continue editing with a notice of ownership similar to what I explained above. No need for you to wait a month for this to get sorted out. Remember to go through and add a notice to all articles that you contributed. This link isBroken16:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
I could only hazard a guess. I think that some people, not knowing the rules, submits a copyrighted text. When they are told they can't use it unless they own the rights to it, instead of admitting a wrong they lie. Some also might just want to get Wikipedia into legal trouble. Sad really. 17:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi David - thanks for the note - you need to put the redirected aiminto double brackets - I think that you only usedone. If you go to the original page abd press edit - it will show you the final formatting. :) The curate's egg07:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
History of alcohol. Do you have any particular reason to prefer that article without internal links? It seems counterproductive for Wikipedia. Kusma(talk)05:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
The article you are adding to many pages is only tangentially relevant and sometimes not relevant at all. At the Wiki, we prefer that you add information to the page rather than adding links which do not add to the page. Also, it is generally considered poor form to cite one's own research. Thank you. Wnissen06:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not unlink valid links. If you continue to remove valid content in the form of links, you might be blocked from editing. Plus, you added a false "source" to American Whiskey Trail which redirects to your web site. Please do not do that again, it has been removed. Wnissen06:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, David Justin, I see you are making many excellent contributions. Thanks for coming up to speed so quickly on the policies and customs at the Wiki. Looking forward to working with you. Wnissen06:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
However can you please not link to your own site. You are linking there as a reference when your site then quotes primary (or less secondary) sources. Can you cite the originals instead (even if they are print references not web links). Justinc02:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alcohol and Teenage Brains
I changed the speedy delete tag on the article to an
You've obviously studied alcohol quite a bit, and I don't dispute your knowledge in the area. I'm just concerned that the article might fail the
original research inclusion guidelines. It may also be appropriate to merge some of the content into the article on alcohol. Cheers, Jasmol04:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
Hello David Justin, I have watched with amazement and gratitude as you have contributed a bevy of excellent pages over the last few weeks. You are really filling in a number of holes that badly needed plugging. I've been going through and marking many of them as stubs (not a negative comment on the content, most articles are marked as stubs for a while just to help them mature more quickly) and adding some wikilinks. Thank you for your extensive research! Wnissen15:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, I removed the full result list of the Ottawa 1981 tasting from the Château Margaux article; it's enough to say it came second last! If people want the full list they can go to Ottawa Wine Tasting of 1981. I was only nosing around all of this after adding the results to the Paris Wine Tasting of 1976 article, which I see you also wrote. Great work on all these wine articles by the way! -- Blorg21:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, thanks for the message. I had a look at some of the other winery articles you have been creating and editing. I'd suggest removing the complete lists of wine tasting results from all the individual winery articles (e.g. Château Mouton Rothschild, Château_Latour, etc.) and instead having the results on the page about the tasting itself. Just linking to the article about the tasting would be enough, with a summary of how they got on; e.g. for Château Ducru-Beaucaillou you could just say "Although Château Ducru-Beaucaillou was judged the best French wine in the Ottawa Wine Tasting of 1981, five Californian wines placed ahead of it." Otherwise the information is duplicated all over the place! -- Blorg23:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might ask what they're doing there at all? Does the Chateau Montelena page have in depth descriptions of its failures? As I see it this is a baldfaced bias. If you want to trumpet decades old wine expos detailing who got beat and why, I think it more even-handed to do so in a dedicated article. As I browse through Bordeaux entries, all I see is what I would call overtly biased negativity. Yes, the eruption of California wines onto a scene that had long been French-dominated is remarkable and it makes a good story. But perhaps the cheerleading should be confined to California wine pages. I think the alternative is ugly. Wouldn't it be more sane to keep wine entries neutral erring on the side of positivity? After all, I can find negative critical comments about just about any wine in any given vintage, as you have proven you can do.--BridgeBurner06:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wine tasting
Hi David, with all the great articles you have been creating about wine tastings I created a Category:Wine_tasting to keep them all together - this centralises links to them all in one place and makes it easier to keep a track/reference between them. I've made the category a sub-category of Wine, Gustation and Oenology. -- Blorg10:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor nit
David, your contributions to Wikipedia have been significant to say the least. You've really fleshed-out the various alcohol related articles in a big way. I was wondering though, if you wouldn't mind including a brief comment in the edit summary when making a change to an article. Just a short, concise note to let the rest of the community know what you changed without reviewing your edits. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Gregmg15:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for enduring the third degree with good humor. As a researcher, I know you know why these things can be important. Post notice of Dr. Kilmer's consent (or non-) on
Today, and for some time now, there are highly accurate tools and other instruments which can accurately diagnose the disease of alcoholism. This is but one of many: SUDDS-IV A condition such as alcoholism and other psychoactive chemical use can, more than most other human conditions, have a devastating effect on not only the person suffering from that condition, but with everyone else in their life. Too often, the pain, frustration and feeling of betrayal can cause these other effected persons to make judgments about the person, most commonly focusing on their behavior. The attitude is, too often, âif they changed their behavior, if they didnât pick up the drink, or take the drug in the first place, this wouldnât be happeningâ. That is why it is critical to take the condition of chemical dependency out of the realm of public opinion and keep it where it belongs: in the hands of competent, unbiased professionals. Chemical dependency is no myth â it is very real. Michael David01:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wine competitions
Hi David, thanks for contributing so many fantastic wine competition articles. I have noticed that you have been adding each individual wine competition article as a link in the see also section of many wine related articles. This is causing the see also sections to become "bloated" with articles that may not be directly relevant, making it hard for users to discern what they actually want to look at. May I suggest that you create a "generic" Wine competition article, that acts as an index to all of the other wine competition articles. The article could also describe how a competition is conducted, how the wines are tasted, who judges them, etc. Such an article would link many other articles together. This will mean only this article, and perhaps other highly relevant articles, will need to be included in the see also sections, keeping things more tidy and organised. Thanks. scharks00:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing Chatter
David I thought you might get a kick out of this from user:Michael David's talk page:
Don't jump ship just yet, partner -- I think I'm mixing my eras there -- Mr Christopher seems to have been cowed a bit, and David Justin is trying to play nice. Whether their tactic is to listen, lay back, then strike, I don't know. But right now, I think I've got them seeing things through a different lens. Mine. And that would portend yours. --Sadhaka 11:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
It was a pragmatic solution to avoid a more major dispute. However, the fact that the page is now free-standing does not remove the need to completely rewrite it (and to remove the fake citations: some of the links do not work and some are quoted when you obviously have not actually read them). That said, I hope that you will find life here at least interesting if not enjoyable. The challenges are many, but the opportunity for satisfaction is high. Good luck. David9104:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Hanson, thanks for your comments on my user page re: posting on the MADD page. Six months late, but I finally got around to it. I hope to do more, once I get the hang of this editing business. Letaylor
A plagiarism-detector bot has indicated that you copied the article on William E. Johnson. The article has been deleted. Please do not do this sort of thing again, for legal reasons; otherwise, disciplinary measures will be taken. DS02:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
Warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be
three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Scientizzle18:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
Regarding your posting on my user talk page, I'm always happy to offer advice.
First, because this isn't a clear case of vandalism (see below), the
WP:3RR
limit applies. You've been warned about this; if you violate the rule again, a block for 24 hours is pretty much automatic.
Second, I don't think anyone has mentioned the Wikipedia
conflict of interest rule
, which pertains, for example, to people adding links to their own website. Please read and follow that.
Third, it's clear that
sock puppet
- he's using a user script or something similar to do mass reverts. If you know someone who you've tangled with before, possibly someone blocked or warned about his/her reverts of your edits, then there is probably a good chance that he/she is using this new account. If you have some names to suggest, I could take a further look, and give you additional advice.
Fourth, since it seems clear from postings above, and this December complaint that you are Dr. Hanson, I strongly urge you to use the many sources you're familiar with as the basis for information you add, as opposed to citing your own website. For example, on this page, the footnote for the section on Joseph H. Choate, Jr., is:
Kyvig, David E. Repealing National Prohibition. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2000; Lender, Mark E. The Historian and Repeal. In: Kyvig, David E. (Ed.) Law, Alcohol, Order: Perspectives on National Prohibition. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1985. Pp. 177-205; Root, Grace C. Women and Repeal: the Story of the Womenâs Organization for National Prohibition Reform. NY: Harper & Brothers, 1934; Vose, Clement E. Repeal as a Political Achievement. In: Kyvig, David E. (Ed.) Law, Alcohol, Order: Perspectives on National Prohibition. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1985. Pp. 97-121.
In the Wikipedia article on
Harvard referencing if that made it easier. Wikipedia has far too few experts who have access to really good source material, the type that is routinely used by Encyclopaedia Britannica. I hope you might consider Wikipedia an opportunity to flesh out articles like the one on Choate, Jr., by using the same sources of information that you used in your articles on the web, but without linking to your website. -- John Broughton(â«â«)22:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
David - regarding your response on my user talk page, several points need a response:
It's apparent who has created the sock puppet, "Wham." While not all sock puppets are per se against the rules here, some are. If you think this one is, I can help if you're tell me what other username(s) have been used by that person.
My personal objection to at least some of the links that you're adding is that they pertain to only part of one of your webpages, and sometimes most of the text there is already in Wikipedia, which means the value of the link is only for the references provided in that section of your page. This can be a very small payoff - if any payoff at all - for a reader who follows the link, who must first find the section, then read the text and realize he/she has already seen it, then follow a link to the sources for that section, at the bottom of your webpage, then realize the sources are offline.
The way that you could provide the most value to Wikipedia is to actually treat the articles you're editing as if they were your own. By that, I don't mean "owning" the articles in the sense that you reject or approve edits by others (that would be a violation of
policy), but rather that you use sources (books, articles, etc.) to add content directly to Wikipedia, with citations. By contrast, what you're doing now is of relatively little value; you're providing links to pages that only indirectly are relevant to article subjects. Why not write directly for Wikipedia? -- John Broughton(â«â«)20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Spamming
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in
Under Wikipedia's âLinks normally to be avoidedâ is #11, âLinks to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.David Justin15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Womens Organization for National Prohibition Reform. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1131637220.html in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the
Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Womens Organization for National Prohibition Reform saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.
It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow
Thanks for the complement. I never really intended spend that much time with the article. It took way more time than I would have liked. I would say that there is still more reference work to be done. I think links to the scientific data are needed. The programs of proven effectiveness could use references on which programs are actually more effective and why. The article also needs some ref data on why the program is widely used. User:Sefringle placed the ref tag there on May 21, 2007. I will leave a message on the User talk:Sefringle page asking whether or not the ref tag can go. I would say that I have no vested interest in the article otherwise. I merely landed there to document the D.A.R.E. police cars. At the time I placed the copy there, the article had serious NNN N-NPOV problems. There is also occasional vandalism, which I feel like I am the only one correcting. Group2922:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is evidence to suggest that you are connected with Professor David Justin Hanson, PhD. The writings attributed to Dr. Hanson on the Potsdam.edu site have substantial numbers of references, which would seem to be more connected and a better representation to the position that D.A.R.E. is ineffective. The particular reference to the statement "there is no scientific evidence..." looked like it was picked from a google search on "dare+effective". I give your credit that you put more relevant text in after I made my change that the reference did not support the statement. Based on other Wikipedia contributions, the conclusions I could draw are
a.) You are not actually Dr. Hanson, but agree with his views.
b.) You are not actually Dr. Hanson, but one of his assistants
c.) You are Dr. Hanson, but possibly you have a misunderstanding of/contempt for Wikipedia and do not feed the need to put your already researched references.
d.) You are trolling on this article
No matter what position you represent, my opinion is that Dr. Hanson's work can stand on its own merits and can be referenced effectively in this article. According to his research, there is scientific evidence that D.A.R.E. is ineffective. That should be added and cited as a valuable contribution in the article. Thanks Group2915:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Hanson, I recommend you recuse yourself from adding any more of your point of view to the D.A.R.E. article. You are not helping here. Nothing personal, obviously you are POV. Thanks much, Group29 (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verification of sources (for the D.A.R.E. article)
The following example illustrates my understanding of what constitutes verification of sources for facts presented in Wikipedia:
A fact: Daryl Gates testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that infrequent or casual drug users "ought to be taken out and shot" because "we're in a war" and even casual drug use is "treason."
A verification: Ronald J. Ostrow, Casual Drug Users Should Be Shot, Gates Says, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 6, 1990, p. A1.
An observation: It is not necessary to verify the validity or invalidity of Gatesâ assertions by verifying any sources he may have used in coming to his beliefs. Similarly, if Gates had published an opinion piece making those same assertions, it would not be necessary to identify any sources or references upon which he may have relied. In short, we only need to verify his statements, not his basis for them
Prof. Justin, clearly you have an understanding of how it works. In practice, I do not understand why you are acting to the contrary. please check out the Wikipedia:Verifiability section if you have not already. For example in this change you made on 22 September 2007, you mixed in a combination of assertion that can be verified and assertion that needs verification.[1]
"D.A.R.E. also attempted unsuccessfully to prevent airing of an episode of the TV series "Murphy Brown," in which she used marijuana for medical purposes on advice of her physician. It was argued that the episode âSent the wrong message to our children.â" The episode in the final season of Murphy Brown is called "Waiting to inhale" which could be verified on an episode guide, series biography, or perhaps by looking back through old issues of TV Guide. However the assertion that D.A.R.E. unsuccessfully tried to prevent the airing of the episode is not backed by a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources as to why this is not a valid source. In fact, the text you sourced at hemotopia.org appears to originally be sourced at jackherer.com, which may or may not be appearing with Mr. Herer's permission. I noted a previous example of an argumentum ad populum statement in the talk page. Please see also Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. I already have pointed out politely places where the statements are unsupported by the references, and then went back and changed the article to fit the context of the reference. I understand your point of view on this article, which is that the D.A.R.E. program is not effective. As I stated before, the sources and statements can stand on their own merits. You have self-published essay material with this point of view on your web sites. This material is linked from the article. This material brought into the article is going against the policy Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox.
Hi David. There are a lot of different opinions on alcoholism out there, so it's very important to enforce verifiability so that readers have the context necessary to evaluate claims for themselves. The issue with your revision was that it mentioned a study, but cited an article about the study from a third party. News articles tend to mangle scientific research, and some books have discussed studies that nobody could verify ever happened, so when you're referencing a scientific study, it's best to reference the author's original research paper from the peer-reviewed scientific journal it appeared in. Hope that helps. --Elplatt20:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - many thanks for the kind words. Most of the stuff I have is being posted at the site www.ourcampaigns.com, which is a preferable political site. Chronicler3 (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on the citations
Thanks for your hard work cleaning up the "citation needed" tags I added to
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria
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
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) 15:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright
infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text â which means allowing other people to modify it â then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
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. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters ⢠(Broken clamshells⢠Otter chirps ⢠HELP!)14:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
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. Flowanda | Talk11:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Flowanda | Talk00:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1124913901.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing
.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remove Intoxicated Drivers 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. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of Voluntary Committee of Lawyers
While all constructive 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.
section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.domperignon.me/history-of-champagne/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing
.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Jcmcc (Talk) 09:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Prescott 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) 20:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination of
Mark R. Shaw
for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark R. Shaw 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. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable on his own. Frequently mentioned in press for having developed the FAT Bastard wine brand, but with no SIGCOV on himself. Sole source in article is passing mention; No sigcov sources found in search.
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
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Watkins 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. Lapablo (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article duplicates History of wine but with no citations. The table duplicates that of Wine but more outdated. This orphaned article has no real relevance beyond History of wine.
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.
Lack of sufficient notability. Article created by a blocked account. See comments on article Talk page from 2018.
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.
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
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University
The article
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University has been proposed for deletion
because of the following concern:
Center on Addiction is now called Partnership to End Addiction. A separate page was created for Partnership to End Addiction about 6 years ago. That page is quite robust, this one is not, so I feel that this page should be deleted.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Whiskey Trail until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Drug Abuse Resistance Education. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
