1, 2, 3, 4
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 (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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GtstrickyTalk or C 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{hangon}}
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
—
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. GreenJoe 13:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started a
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. GreenJoe 00:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You suggested on my talk page that the source added for "NoDaddy.com" made the link valid. However, a blog post is not a sufficient source to support validity. Can you find something else more mainstream? For now, please keep this discussion on the talk page -- this will stop the "edit war" and allow for a discussion. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. GreenJoe 22:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You asked who had placed the fact tags on the article, and as you could of read on the article's talk page, that was me. I placed them there because they needed to be there, not, as you alledged, for "bad faith reasons". Please be aware that making such allegations is highly frowned upon. If you can find the facts, you can fix the article. I have yet to see anyone do it. Hooper (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know out of common curteosy that I have recently reverted a few of your recent changes. That is because they may be considered a wikicrusade of sorts. Remember, it is wonderful that you have your beliefs and great that they are working for you, but as a whole wikipedia does not evangelize nor censor anything for religious reasons. However, I am with you on the Dom article, alleged should definately be in that lead in. Hooper (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit to Live Prayer could be construed as vandalism, your edit summary certainly was not accurate. --Chimro (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
The article
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be
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.
{{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 {{talk) 18:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{talk) 18:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rick Strawn 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/Rick Strawn until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 00:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Developed. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 5#Developed until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. gnu57 16:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]