User talk:Araignee

This user may have left Wikipedia. Araignee has not edited Wikipedia since 14 June 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

		The Original Barnstar
		For making some great contributions to the encyclopedia. Keep up the good work! —Eustress talk 04:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work with organizing the LDS films! —Eustress ^talk 04:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you're creating new articles, you should consider putting some of them up for WP:DYK—a great way for your work to gain exposure. —Eustress ^talk 16:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 18:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit actually restored some vandalism to the Luis Alberto Suárez article. Please be careful! Otherwise, keep up the great vandal fighting! Thanks. GedUK  08:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch! ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to use edit summaries for each edit, so that others may easily understand the change to the article. Thanks —Eustress ^talk 21:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? —Eustress ^talk 13:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tend to forget...keep reminding me if necessary, though. I need to make it a habit. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For working tirelessly to expand and update sports-related articles. Cheers! —Eustress talk 21:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever thought about beginning an archive for your talk page posts, rather than removing them in order to keep your talk page tidy. Archives are not a necessity, as the information is still in the history; however, it does have its advantages. Only asking after reviewing your request for reviewer. We usually look to see if any particular issues that might concern an understanding of addressing either vandalism or BLP issues have recently been brought up on the talk page from any other editors and was just a little curious is all :) Kindly Calmer Waters 23:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't thought of archiving them as of yet, since my talk page has relatively low traffic. Perhaps someday in the future... ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, mine has been pretty quiet lately also :) I was wondering while I was here, if you would also like the rollback tool? It can come in handy when quickly dealing with obvious vandalism, would allow you access to Huggle should you ever wish to give it a try, and when used along with popups on your watch-list, can be quite helpful. Calmer Waters 04:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That could be useful. I do work in waves with vandalism... ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then consider it done. Please take a few moments to refresh yourself with the guidelines regarding rollback if needed and remember it is only to assist with cases of obvious vandalism, otherwise the old fashion (undo) with edit summary is best. Have fun and take care. Kindly Calmer Waters 04:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Thanks again. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Calmer Waters 23:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: http://www.uconnhuskies.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/032911aaa.html

What is the "State Conference" you added here? The source indicates they were independent until the 1917-1918 season. Do you have a source that says otherwise? —Eustress ^talk 19:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly familiar with how it should be...they were independent. I was assuming that the state of Utah was treated as a sort of conference at the time, as in the "Cougars in Conference" section of the source, it first lists the state championships from 1906-1917 then goes to conference results. I thought I'd mirror this in said article, but perhaps it's best to change it back to independent? If not, I noticed the colours are wrong; they should show "conference tournament champion", not "regular season champion", and conference standing should definitely be blanked. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we need to stick to reliable sources and not guess anything. I noticed you made a number of changes since splitting the list off into a separate article that don't jive with the version I created according to the source (including the miscolorings). Therefore, I've restored the original pre-2010-2011 season content. If there are any doubts, consult the source, or put a comment on the talk page if you located some reliable source that says otherwise and we can discuss. —Eustress ^talk 00:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see where the problems are coming from. There were definitely no guesses, I simply forgot to update the source to this (BYU's current media guide), which includes the conference championships/standings. I meticulously added all of the colourings based on this document, and they should be accurate. I'll move it back to how I had it tomorrow, updating the source and switching the "State" section to independent. If you have any concerns, let me know. I'll copy this to the talk page, too. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

→Conversation taken to Talk:List of BYU Cougars men's basketball seasons

A automated "anti-vandal" bot named XLinkBot (talk · contribs) has recently attempted to revert a big chunk of the ref & misc fixes I've been doing on Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Could you help me keep an eye on that article to make sure that doesn't happen again? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'll keep an eye on it. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Summit Stake Tabernacle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franklin D. Richards (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot works by matching articles based on how they're linked on other language Wikis. In other words, if the French Wikipedia article about the State of Palestine includes [[en:Palestinian National Authority]], the bot will link the two articles. To fix the problem, you'd have to fix all the foreign-language wikis that are causing the problems. If you revert the bot, it will just come back and "fix" the problem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I was getting sick of reverting those. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Araignee. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 00:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hey - I'm aware that the category is for organizations, it says so in its name, but it's my opinion that adding the sub-article is more useful than adding the main article because the sub-article is the one that contains information on the church's activism, while the main article contains almost nothing on that subject. For users interested in reading about activism, Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism is the article to go to, even though it isn't the main article for the organization. What do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could see both ways, but the thing that makes me feel it should be on the main article is that when I go directly to the category, I expect to see the actual organizations rather than a loose-knit set of articles. There is already the Homosexuality and Religion category, and its child Homosexuality and Catholicism. There's also Christian denominational positions on homosexuality, which is a bit overkill and covers the same stuff :^)

Anyway, I'd say that with the great template at the bottom already linking the Homosexuality and ____ religion section, there's little ambiguity or difficulty getting around, and the category should go on the organization. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could create a redirect Catholic Church opposition to LGBT rights or something, that would be clearer about the organization's name but also go to the most informational section? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the purpose in creating a page for the sole purpose of redirecting it. If someone wants to know about opposition to LGBT rights, there is LGBT rights opposition#Religious reasons for opposition along with plenty of articles. If they navigate the category tree they will find the articles they want. I don't really anticipate confusion for those that are trying to find the articles/information they are looking for...either way, I believe the category of organizations should have articles on organizations. It's not a category about why they oppose or even about what the relationship with the homosexual community they have (as mentioned above, there are already several categories that do that), but simply a list of organizations. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is that readers using the category might want more than a list of organizations - they might follow the links in the category to learn about the organizations' opposition. If they did that for the RCC (or LDS), they'd be slogging through several levels of articles to get to the information. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are specific, rather than catch-alls. This category is quite specific and it should remain specific; it should only be applied to organizations that relate directly to the topic. When Wikipedia functions properly all readers are benefited because the rules and policies are understood. However, when allow a category to bleed all over the place we succeed in creating a mess for someone to clean up in the future. It does not appear that we need another category that relates to lists of articles about/or relate to the topic. This category should only be applied to orgainizations and not related articles. It is just my two cents gathered from years of seeing how difficult it is to clean up after the well-intentioned messes that we create from time to time. -^StormRider 07:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen any confusion for those that are trying to get to the articles, and once again, there are already other categories that apply. At this point I'd say it's a non-issue and this cat doesn't need to go on the related article. If it becomes a point a confusion, then it's worth considering a new, differently-titled category. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 13:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that sensible navigation should be prioritized over strict adherence to the category title. The "homosexuality and religion" category tree seems insufficient when churches are also activist groups (the latter being what this category is for), and it seems obvious, at least to me, that when the RCC and LDS sub-articles are included, it is the RCC and LDS that are being categorized as the organizations. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm a little puzzled as to your reasons for reverting the entire section "rationale for racial restrictions". Your stated reason was: "Contrary to claiming rationale for such a policy, the LDS Church has explicitly denied neutrality in the life before, and stated that all were pure entering this world. Opinions of leaders does not equate doctrine." I have trouble following this logic. How does "policy" differ from "opinions of leaders"? The "policy" was that blacks could not hold the priesthood. The "opinions of leaders" supplied the rationale for that policy. Also, as I understand it, the church leaders quoted in the reverted passage stated that there was no neutrality in the life before; it's just that blacks did not oppose Satan "valiantly" enough. This was not just the "opinion" of a leader, but the long-time teaching of Joseph Fielding Smith, for many years an Apostle before he became President of the Church. He asserted this tenet in many of his published writings. Please help me to better understand your thinking on this. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move this to the article talk page. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 00:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Defense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 01:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because you participated in Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Organization or Place? you might be interested in participating in this: Talk:Elections in the Palestinian_National Authority#Requested move. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user, your opinion on reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity? is required. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in participated in the discussion at Talk:Gaza_Strip#Infobox because you participated in a similar discussion at Talk:Palestinian territories/Archive 6#Asad112's revert. Emmette Hernandez Coleman Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Palestinian_National_Authority#Organization_or_Place.3F there seams to be some confusion over weather by "organization" you meant "an autonomous geopolitical entity with specific territory - similar to Hong Kong", or if you meant an "organization" like the Government of Hong Kong or the Kurdistan Regional Government". Could you clarify please? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new discussion on what article State of Palestine#Demographics belongs in. I'm telling you this because you participated in the previous one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 08:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about this source? Also "administered territories", "territories of undetermined permanent status", "1967 territories", and "the territories" are listed yet they don't cite any source, so I think TFD is a far better source then no source. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's a much better source, yes. The "any source is better than none" statement I don't agree with, though...Wikipedia cares about verifying with reliable sources; thus, with no reliable sources, it's not worth putting. That being said, I don't disagree with the inclusion of information, just the quality of sources originally used on such a contentious article. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 00:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Occupy Wall Street Barnstar
		Thanks for your help reverting unconstuctive edits! Amadscientist (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you are the creater and only maintainer (so far) of template:MormonLit author and template:MormonLit work. Is there a reason you are pointing these templates to the old database at mormonlit.byu.edu instead of mormonarts.lib.byu.edu which is the new location for the renamed and expanded database? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I haven't looked at it for a bit and didn't even know they'd changed :) Feel free to update it, or I'll take a look when I get a chance. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 00:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Araignee. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Eleven (Myracle novel) to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's better. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bradshaw (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keith Bradshaw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA Says "Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor." His personal opinion of my conduct was irreverent to the discussion, now the heck was that statement not Derogatory? The quibbling and overreacting had been removed until you restored it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would be considered evidence in a complaint. He simply stated his concerns and said he would file a complaint. At that point, it's between you two and arbitration. To remove his content is like you're hiding his concern. If it was derogatory, it would stand as evidence in your favour in arbitration. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed your vast experience and wanted to contact you about helping to resolve a dispute. I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. Thank you. Cowicide (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not deeply familiar with the subject matter, but from what I can tell, it looks like there is plenty of activity on the talk page already. I will note that the comprehensive list you've posted of criticism is undue weight for said article, but much of the criticism appears to be appropriately covered in that article or some of its more relevant sibling articles. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 02:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael T. Weiss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack O'Brien (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 22:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you reject a given source for any particular crowd estimate, where it is clear some sort of event took place it is probably best to leave the name of the city up. For, example, there's no question some sort of protest occured in Austin--it is mentioned in several other listed sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fflintty (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's mentioned in a reliable source, feel free to include it. Self-published blogs/"news" sites don't qualify as reliable sources (see WP:QS and WP:SPS, for example). ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 03:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given our previous interactions, I would be interested in your thoughts about what is being discussed at wp:Non-free content review#File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit on the SNAP page and read the CATO report. My question is how is erroneous payments a form of fraud? It seems disingenuous to suggest that mistakes by the program are fraud on the part of the recipients. I ask because I am admittedly not familiar with how this is measured. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two ways: either the recipient doesn't return the excess balance, or they received the funds without qualifying for SNAP. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enoch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Mailbox (film) 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/The Mailbox (film) 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. Cavarrone 16:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the edit linking to Orson_Scott_Card documented long history of homophobia? This is not a personal opinion. This is a well documented fact. User:jackal242 (talk) 3:54, 11 Sept 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#Huge_section_on_Police_infiltration_is_completely_gone.21 16:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC) Moscowamerican (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Melanie and I'm here on behalf of Endurance International Group to propose updates to the Wikipedia article. I am hoping to find a neutral editor to review the proposed draft mentioned in this edit request. I won't edit the article directly because of my conflict of interest, but hope you might be able to help since you've been keeping an eye on the article for a while. I am leaving talk page notes for the other editors I pinged before, too. Thanks for your consideration. Melanie from Endurance (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Araignee. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have experience in JavaScript. I'm hoping you can help me with a problem I've run into writing a userscript.

Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript#Nested RegExp.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 12:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a FYI. I am a different person than the editor at IP address 212.92.121.87. Thanks. 132.198.151.86 (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article On the Way Home (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The page has been tagged for notability concerns for almost 7 years.

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. Edward321 (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Finding Faith in Christ has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No independent sources, article has been tagged for sources and notability for 6 years

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. Edward321 (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Mountain of the Lord has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article has been tagged for notability for 6 years.

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. Edward321 (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article How Rare a Possession has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Artilce has been tagged for notability for 7 years

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. Edward321 (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Araignee. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Finding Faith in Christ 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/Finding Faith in Christ 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 ) 19:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Phone Call (1977 film) 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/The Phone Call (1977 film) 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Together Forever (1987 film) 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/Together Forever (1987 film) 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. Mortee (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Araignee. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Araignee. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Theophilus Oglethorpe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.exploringsurreyspast.org.uk/themes/places/surrey/waverley/godalming/godalming_the_oglethorpe_family/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material 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 use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy 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 "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. mathieu ottawa (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Leslie Sansone, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Search for Truth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable short film, nothing found to help it pass WP:NFILM

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. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cory Dangerfield has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG/ WP:CREATIVE

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. KH-1 (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeffrey M. Bradshaw 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/Jeffrey M. Bradshaw 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.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cliff Alleviation at the Last Minute Act 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/Cliff Alleviation at the Last Minute Act 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.

Gabe114 (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]