User talk:Green Squares

Sorry, I speak 3 romance languages and none of them use that spelling. I didn't realize Canadian English (?) had such a feature. I did restore the defaultsort, which was the main reason for my editing the article. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it doesn't appear in the OED...but then what do those limeys know eh? :) Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, why titles in Dutch and Icelandic, and not any of the hundred other languages with books on Hitler? How likely is it that an English-speaking reading will be interested? German, well, that makes sense, given the significant literature. I see no reason, however, to privilege Dutch and Icelandic.... Bytwerk (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But my question is still of what use will Dutch and Icelandic books be to the English-speaking reader? Wikipedia prefers English-language sources (for the English version, anyway). Should we add Bulgarian, Japanese, and Estonian books as well? The page could rapidly expand to interminable length. I'm not disagreeing that it makes sense to have a foreign language section, and I agree the German titles may be useful. But I didn't remove the foreign language heading. I removed those for Dutch and Icelandic. So again, what do books in Dutch and Icelandic do to strengthen the article? Bytwerk (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still asking the question: Why Icelandic and Dutch? Why not also add Bulgarian, Urdo, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.? The point I am making is that it does no reader of the article any benefit to include obscure languages. Bytwerk (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others may add the foreign language titles, but I'm asking why you think it is necessary to revert, say, Icelandic, just because someone else added it. What possible value does it add for the English-speaking reader? Bytwerk (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another cemetary, see here: [1]. --DaQuirin (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anderssen's grave is in Wroclaw (of course). There are obviously two cemetaries with an identical Polish name. The Wroclaw one is the former Friedhof (cemetary) Oswitz, renamed after the war. --DaQuirin (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We appreciate your contributions to the article Arpad Elo, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, I removed your addition.

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.

You might want to look at

Hi. Thanks for your message informing me of your reversion. However, how can the name "List of Adolf Hitler books" be correct? "Adolf Hitler" is a (proper) noun, not an adjective. If you (or you think other people) aren't happy with "List of books by and about Adolf Hitler", how about "List of books relating to Adolf Hitler" or "List of Adolf Hitler-related books"..? (I'm not too keen on the latter, though).
I was also about to rename "List of Adolf Hitler speeches" to "List of speeches given by Adolf Hitler". Would that also prompt a reversion?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I've posted queries on both articles' talkpages. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not vandalize, the info you added is inappropriate for WP under

We can't leave the info in, it's specifically against the guidelines. If I hadn't reverted you, someone else would have for the same reasons. As far as I'm concerned, to have the info included, the burden would be on you to explain why we should go against

{Talk} 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have the right to delete information which is not valid. Talk page is not a forum and please stop entering game guide information. Read the

However, references to the battle can be found on the following sites: CEF Research, Veteran's Affairs Canada, The Long, Long Trail to name a few... I've been meaning to post up a wiki page on 2nd Givenchy, but haven't found time to get round to it... near future I hope. Givenchy is ever remembered as the battle in which Canadian soldiers gave up on the

I hope that settles things - Whisky Whiskymack(talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, GS! Save

Hi post it on your user page and be proud, nice work ! Green Squares (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per

I am sorry but admin intervention is not needed in this case. If you have a conflict with this editor, please try to talk to them. If this fails, please pursue

dispute resolution. Regards SoWhy 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Green Squares, I noticed you had changed the format of this article again and came here to explain. I thought my edit summary would explain things, but I guess not. Not long after I started editing Wikipedia's articles on snakes, I noticed that many species had many common names, but that Wikipedia did not have a satisfactory method for dealing with them systematically. So, I came up with this format, which I've applied to about 500 snake articles now. Please read this recent discussion. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

typically we put the common names in the first sentence of the article after "also known as" not on top, which is where the disambiguations go. Green Squares (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm well aware of that. Please read the link I gave you. (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my

watchlist). --Jwinius (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, I've had to delete the articles you submitted today about chess sets, because you gave no indication of any type of notability whatsoever. If you wish to re-create the articles, I recommend that you include some content about why they matter. DS (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the content of the four articles:

1. "'The Selenus chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess."
2. "The French Regence chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess."
3. "The St. George chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess.", and
4. "The 'Barleycorn chess set s composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess."

There is no content here. If these are actually notable, if they've genuinely been around for centuries, then you should say so from the very first edit. You should explain why they matter. You did not do that. But you can do it now. DS (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, there is content and you also deleted the citations to each article and other information in the articles. These are stub +tag articles and there is room for them to ""Keep and Expand"", which is all that is required for an article at Wikipedia. Green Squares (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{

Thank you Green Squares (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please speak to him first, or request a

deletion review. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I gave you the full content of your articles. There were no citations, only links to photos. Now you can expand them in your userspace before moving them out into mainspace. DS (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want

Chillum 01:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Please avoid personal attacks such as "over zealous admin dick named User:DragonflySixtyseven"; such incivility will not be tolerated. Thank you. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is Wikipedia any different than real life? For example, you wouldn't walk up to a stranger in the street and say "You're a dick", would you? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but it's still considered uncivil to specifically address someone by calling them a dick. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Two wrongs don't make a right" –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

though I would never use the word "dick" myself in this context, I think it just might apply to admins who delete incomplete articles 5 minutes after they've been started. I would have used the entirely appropriate word "overzealous" and, in fact, I think I will go back to the Deletion review and add it to my comment. But GS, calling someone a "dick" does tend to make them angry and doesn't help things along--as you can see at the discussion there. DGG (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support having the articles about the chess sets, if they can be expanded. However, please be civil to the admin

Looking at it as a third party, I think your general tone was angry and uncivil, e.g "Stop lying". Bubba73 (talk), 15:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a supporter of undeleting these articles for process reasons, I do think you are hurting your cause by being uncivil. Take it down a few notches and things will more likely go your way. From a process viewpoint you are in the right, but people hate to reward uncivil behavior around here, so you might lose the issue on that basis alone. It likely shouldn't be that way, but there you are. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen enough people around here with a similar attitude get banned from the site. I'd urge you to back off a bit. Obviously up to you. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GS, Thank you for your invitation. My view is the same as that of Bubba73. Just calm down and put your obvious energy and intelligence into expanding the articles. Writtenright (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Writtenright[reply]

Thank you for all your hard work. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to you with important information relevant to your continued editing of Wikipedia, at [2]. —Centrx→talk • 01:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A

Redundant, already covered in article Swine Influenza.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the

In good faith, I alerted the admins to what I thought was redundant article. The comment above that is attributed to me is an automatic template generated when I sent that alert, not written by me. I feel your comment on my Talk page, "It doesn't look like your foolish attempt to delete the article went very far...have fun! Green Squares (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)" is unhelpful and unnecessary. I'm trying to keep Wiki as accurate and concise as possible, just like you and every other editor. My alert was nothing personal and I ask that you reconsider your response. Portia327 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your motivation for splitting the external links section on

The article is not necessarily "for Canadians" it is about an event in Canada. Splitting the external links section gives undue weight to Canadian external links, and is also unnecessary because it makes extra room on the table of contents when there are only 10 links in total. –xeno ^talk 13:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for outside opinion here: Wikipedia talk:External links#Question on subheaders in the External links section. –xeno ^talk 14:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop wholesale reversion of edits to the

I advised the new editor JiveTalkinChoirBoy to stop reverting his talk page as it is against Wikipedia rules. Would you please advise him to stop doing that, thank you. Green Squares (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. He can remove your messages from his talk page, and it should be taken as an indication that he has read them. Please read

Wikipedia:USERTALK#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. --Stephen 12:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You've always been able to remove warnings from your talk page, except if you are blocked or accused of serious issues such as sockpuppetry.

Wikipedia:User page#NOT gives a list of what is unacceptable. --Stephen 12:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, in your edit of the above page you have replaced 'Notes and Sources' with 'References'. I have changed it back to 'Notes and Sources' as they are notes and sources and there is already a references section. Also you changed 'reflist' to 'reflist|3. What benefits do you envisage to that change? Cheers --Davidbeare (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your note pointing me to ([3] 00:41, 30 May 2009) That's what, I thought, reflist|3 is not recommended. I'm a novice so I don't know whether there is a reason you want to use reflist|3 if it is not recommended. If there isn't one shall we just revert it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbeare (talk • contribs)

"Gratius Falsius" is a well known in-joke amongst classicists (his name is latin for "gratuitous hoax"). If he's "an ancient Roman author and historian writing in the year 8 AD", surely there'd be some mention of this author on the internet aside from this travesty of broken English you've dug up: "Fleig stated that Roman author Gratius Falsius from the year 8 A.D. written of big exhibition fights in the Roman amphitheatre between the pugnaces from Epirus and the pugnaces from Brittain and it turn out that these wide mouth dogs from Brittain were far superior to the Greek Molossus." I don't know if this site is the perpetrator or a victim of this hoax, but all roads seem to lead to the mysterious "Fleig" (also cited on the Wiki page as the author of "Fighting Dog Breeds"). Perhaps this man - writing a book about dogs, not about Roman historians, after all - naively fell for a classicist's joke while researching whether any Roman historians had written about the pugnaces.--Yolgnu (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{

Hello Admin, for the article

I am an Administrator and have replied on the article's talk page. Please drop this now as the book clearly does not meet our criteria at

talk) 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Please accept this headgear as a token of respect and appreciation for your doughty defence of our content. Illegitimi non carborundum — Colonel Warden (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gratius Falsius etc.

I hope I am not going to waste more time with this topic. A dispute on antique history between a mathematician and an MBA makes no sense when there are actual experts around. I have notified the relevant project at WT:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Eyes needed: "Gratius Falsius" and the "Procurator Cynegii" in Roman Britain and will try to stay away from the topic and simply wonder how long it will take for you to be blocked. In the meantime, continue to have fun rewriting history according to dog breeders. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 12:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

June 2009

talk) 21:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Edit Warring at

Pugnaces Britanniae

page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked

from editing. Please note that you are already up against the limit. Please discuss this on the talk page instead of simply returning the article to "your" version. Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 11:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Stalking accusation

You mean hounding, and if you read

talk) 17:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop

You are clearly editing against consensus (besides being wrong) at

talk) 17:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Previous accounts

Have you had any previous accounts? Hipocrite (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, have you? Green Squares (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SirIsaacBrock

. Thank you.

You have already admitted it, but I think it should be logged properly. I have also added three of your earlier incarnations that had not been identified before. --Hans Adler 02:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Hello, Green Squares. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

talk) 19:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:ANI thread. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  11:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Unblock

{{unblock|Hi, I am a sock puppet, I agree. My account was blocked several years ago. I am a good editor that has written hundreds if not a thousand articles and I have started and sorted many categories. I would ask that based on my strong record that I be reinstated at Wikipedia. Thank you. Green Squares (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

• I've disabled your unblock request, as a single admin does not have the authority to overturn a community ban. It may be best for you to contact the
  Arbitration Committee by email if you wish to contest the block. --auburnpilot talk 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hi, I am unable to edit on Wikipedia, so you will have to do it. Thanks. Green Squares (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Green Squares (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, I am a sock puppet, I agree. My account was blocked several years ago. I am a good editor that has written hundreds if not a thousand articles and I have started and sorted many categories. I would ask that based on my strong record that I be reinstated at Wikipedia. Thank you. Green Squares (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A single admin does not have the authority to overturn a community ban. It may be best for you to contact the

Arbitration Committee by email if you wish to contest the block. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I don't see evidence of a community ban, and I could wish that blocking and reviewing admins did a more substantial review of the circumstances before taking action. Sandstein clearly read the SPI case, where he would have noted the comments of a few people (myself included) noting that immediately blocking Green Squares based on his admission might not be the best course of action. Accordingly, an explanation of why he disagrees (and a simple recommendation to Green Squares on how to move forward) was warranted. SirIsaacBrock was blocked nearly three years ago for socking. No sock of his has been blocked (and documented as such) in more than a year, and it appears that for sometime the only reason socks were being blocked is because they had been identified as SirIsaacBrock. I'm not saying he obviously deserves to return, but I suggested on the SPI case that folks discuss the possibility of mentorship and supervised editing... Reflexive blocking for a 3 year old transgression isn't necessarily in our interests. Nathan ^T 22:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you find an admin to "mentor" this individual? Please don't volunteer others for work you can't do. Also, please be sure that the "mentorship" isn't an "enabling." Any further BLP violations, misrepresentation of sources or creation of articles that lack encyclopedic tone should result in a return to indef. Finally, I know of other socks, since discarded. A condition of any unblock/unban should be a full and true accounting of all sock accounts. Hipocrite (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I haven't seen evidence of misrepresenting sources or BLP violations, and I don't think people are typically blocked for not writing in an encyclopedic tone (if that could be defined). Nonetheless, as a long-blocked editor who has socked in the past, mentorship/supervised editing would still make sense. A willing volunteer usually steps up if mentorship is supported as an alternative to an indefinite block. I've proposed a number of things where the work isn't ultimately done by me; just because I can't do something myself doesn't mean a good idea might find a person to follow through. Nathan ^T 23:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about BLP violations, although his creation of the article

ancient breeds as the progenitors of their modern era's counterparts [...]. [4]), which he thought was a BLP, probably came close. [5]

If I wrote dog books and plagiarised citations of classical authors from earlier dog books by others, I wouldn't want Wikipedia to draw attention to the fact in this way.

As this example demonstrates (keeping in mind that the user is by no standards a newbie), the main problem with this editor is one that JzG addressed openly when he temporarily blocked one of his socks. [6] The background to that block can be found at

canes pugnaces must not be turned into a redirect, and also in the brilliant surprise move [8]. (The article itself explained that canis pugnax is singular and canes pugnaces is plural. He did the move without any warning, during an argument with several editors from WP:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. This was based on a misspelling on a single website.) Hans Adler 23:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Nathan, I'd be nice if you didn't assume complete incompetence on the part of the admins reviewing this request. I assure you, I thoroughly read through the situation, reviewed the sock report, checked the recentness of the sockpuppets, and only then made the judgment that the block was not suitable for review by a single admin. Maybe you failed to see the report on ANI before you commented here, but I didn't. The intention to block was announced in a very public forum and was not met with opposition. --auburnpilot talk 00:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you of complete incompetence, I wasn't and I don't believe you are at all incompetent. I have read (and commented at) the thread at AN/I, which has had relatively little participation and that little made primarily by folks opposed to GS in a content dispute. You and Julian both cited a community ban as the reason for declining/disabling the unblock, but I don't find any evidence of a community ban. The block message didn't address any of the background or give any information outside the template on how to achieve an unblock, and the declines seemed to me to take on faith comments made at AN/I that lacked direct evidence and described events open to interpretation. So, my comment was that I'd wish blocking and declining admins made a more substantial review; perhaps what I should have said is that I would like to read about the substance of that review, instead of assuming it was done despite what struck me as a misconception of events.

In any event, there is a limit to the volume of advocacy I'm willing to do for an editor whose conduct I'm not able to vouch for; Green Squares, I'd advise you to take up the instructions of others and review

arbitration committee (specifically the ban appeal subcommittee) by e-mail ([email protected] I believe) if you'd like to be unblocked and no administrator steps forward to do so. Nathan ^T 00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Contacting Arbcom

Hello, you can e-mail Arbcom to request they review your ban if you're unable to edit. Their e-mail address can be found here: [9] -

<>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Community ban of SirIsaacBrock

If you look at his userpage

talk) 05:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

We have a terminological problem with indefinitely blocked, banned and community banned, with no clear demarcations between them. SirIsaacBrock is technically community banned per the wording of

WP:BANNED since July 2006 [11]

). He was not banned per item 1, and I believe the term "community ban" is often used as referring specifically to that.

It's clear that a community ban as in item 2 or 3 can be reversed by a single admin unblocking. It's not at all clear to me how long that is possible, and I guess the community is divided between those who say a ban that did not come about through a formal banning discussion can always be undone by a simple unblock, and those who say such an unblock would have to happen within days after the relevant AN or ANI discussion.

I have added information about number of blocks/unblocks and (last) indefinite block with date, blocking admin and rationale to the collapsed table at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SirIsaacBrock to facilitate the discussion. Hans Adler 07:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hans. Nathan ^T 12:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks Hans. The last detected one seems to be over a year ago. (For info, I'm gathering background for a ban appeal filed with ArbCom.)  Roger Davies ^talk 06:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I actually expect to see Green Squares around since he obviously means well and tries to follow policies. Not that I think it's a good idea, unless you can find a good mentor who can teach him AGF. I do not know much about the content that he has built and I expect you will look much closer, but what I have seen consists mostly of excessive quotations. Hans Adler 15:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he will definitely need a mentor. His behavior doesn't seem to have changed over the years he's been socking - personal attacks, edit warring and a real failure to understand

talk) 15:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Update: This is the text of an email sent today to User:Green Squares:

As you have rejected out of hand each of our various proposals for mentorship or editing restrictions, the Ban Appeal Subcommittee has no alternative but to decline your appeal. You may appeal again next year. If, on reflection, you decide that you are able to cooperate with restrictions, you may appeal earlier. A copy of this message will be posted on your talk page.

For the Ban Appeal Subcommittee,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ban suspended

The

Ban Appeal Subcommittee has considered the block on User:Green Squares (a sock of User:SirIsaacBrock

and it is suspended, subject to the user's unconditional acceptance of, and adherence to, the following restrictions:

1. The user edits from one and only one account, namely User:Green Squares;
2. The user is mentored by John Vandenberg for a period of three months;
3. The user is topic banned from any article relating to fighting dogs and/or attack dogs and/or the associated dog breeds, broadly defined.

The editor has unconditionally accepted the terms by email and the timetable will run from the time the editor is unblocked by his mentor, John Vandenberg, who is currently travelling.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user elected to have user:WritersCramp unblocked. Arbcom was informed and there was no objection to this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for unblocking my original account. Just a clarification on the topic ban, I believe it lasts six months, until August 12, 2010. WritersCramp (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Falconry of Kenya

Article Wizard

.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humane

The article

Humane has been proposed for deletion

because of the following concern:

This article as it stands is a dictionary entry. I see no prospect for it being anything else. Adjectives in general are bad titles for articles. --Trovatore (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{

dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page

.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{

dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Trovatore (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lottatore Brindisino

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard

to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on

deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion

. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, 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 that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. – anna 13:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Filip02.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

"Ben Nyaumbe" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect

Ben Nyaumbe should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Ben Nyaumbe 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. Plantdrew (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:Venomous spiders has been nominated for deletion

Category:Venomous spiders has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 20:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dog Legislation Council of Canada

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard

to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dog Legislation Council of Canada requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. StarM 20:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of IWar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IWar 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/IWar 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.

–Vipz (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]