investigation
Thank you, editor who had "two blissful years". for quality articles, investigating politics and law cases (Mass surveillance in East Germany, Investigation of the death of Trayvon Martin, Iranian legislative election, 1950, and - most complex - right here), for dealing with deletions and openness helping editor retention, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious and missed

You may like a line from my latest article: "I found Diogenes especially appealing because he battled against every sort of convention not just theoretically but also in his lifestyle. And what really pleases me: he left no written record whatsoever, and yet his spirit lives on." (Daniel Keel) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hector, got your emails, but I'm not going to reply to them, just FYI. I have sympathies toward your position, but I need to choose my battles. Right now, I'm still formulating where my energies are to be best directed, and TFA is probably not where it's going to be. There are more widespread issues out there. Good luck in your endeavors. Montanabw^(talk) 18:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A year ago, you were the 766th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 766 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Bencherlite. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:Bencherlite, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Cirt (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Cirt, you are WP:INVOLVED and you know it. If an uninvolved user shows up, I'll listen to their advice.Reply[reply]

HectorMoffet, I'm not an admin, I don't fight battles on behalf of others and I'm only here because I'm a TPS of a third party. Now I've got my "neutral" badge on, I really do think you need to take a step back for a couple of hours and get things in perspective. Your actions on Bencherlite's page are crossing a line you really shouldn't be crossing (and there is no need to cross it anyway). You had your say on the page, all well and good, but if Bencherlite chooses to delete threads on his own talk page, he is perfectly entitled to: you should respect that, and not try and force them back on there. They are still in the edit history, and as such a permanent record of them exists. It is every editor's prerogative to clean up their talk page by archiving or by deletion, if they see fit. It's not cool to edit war to re-insert the thread, just because you want it to be there. I'm not getting into the rights and wrongs of all the other stuff that's going on, but I suggest—in an entirely friendly way—that you take a break for as long as it takes to get some perspective on the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bencherlite^Talk 15:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You appear to have lost your ability for rational action, I assume because you're pissed off about something. You've been blocked until you agree not to harass Bancherlite anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• HectorMoffet, please read WP:OWNTALK. As far as deleting material is concerned, Bencherlite can do whatever he wants with his talk page, including with the archives thereof. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Hector, when I asked you to show more determination I meant in creating articles and proposing DYKs, like you had been doing. These talk page edit disputes distract from the justice of your original cause. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 18 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act would withdraw state support for collection of metadata and would ban the use of warrantless data in courts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your article from the wiki and I Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I've closed Did you know nominations/Mass surveillance in North Korea as rejected. If this doesn't make any sense to you, please feel free to promptly revert the closure and add a note there. I'm sorry to have read a few things related to your absence, and hope that you'll feel differently in the future. All the best. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 1 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report on mass surveillance, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report on mass surveillance recommended against a proposal to mandate data retention by U.S. phone companies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report on mass surveillance. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 3 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Klayman v. Obama, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, in the cases of Klayman v. Obama and ACLU v. Clapper, US district courts issued conflicting rulings on the constitutionality of bulk data collection by the US government? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Klayman v. Obama. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

On 3 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article ACLU v. Clapper, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, in the cases of Klayman v. Obama and ACLU v. Clapper, US district courts issued conflicting rulings on the constitutionality of bulk data collection by the US government? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

On 10 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barack Obama on mass surveillance, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barack Obama on mass surveillance. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 18:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Infobox United States proposed state legislation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're blocked, but if anybody else relevant is watching; I've nominated the category you created for listifying and deleting. See Category:Recipients of the Sam Adams Award. Award-winners are much better handled as lists, not categories, for a variety of reasons. Please see WP:OCAT#Award for the basic rationale, and I'm happy to talk about it more if you like. Or, join the discussion at CFD. --Lquilter (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 28 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article USA Freedom Act, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the proposed USA Freedom Act, which would undo certain mass surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act, was introduced by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, author of the Patriot Act? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/USA Freedom Act. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will not deny that WP:DYK is an incredible pain in the ass, even under the best of circumstances, and obviously I've agreed with you on certain points about it in the past. Nonetheless you have a talk page full of DYKs now, and I've just finally gotten them to pass the FISA Improvements Act on. The block notice I see on your account is one of the most temperately worded I've seen out of WP admins: "block may be lifted by any admin without consultation as soon as HM agrees to drop it". But I worry that editors looking back at the history of the articles and talk pages will tend to look at your talk page, see the red X, and discount your opinion without looking at that. For this reason I would really like it if you can just agree to leave the editor alone so you can get unblocked. Just be very careful to be clear that you will do so and don't get drawn into arguing with them about the underlying issue (there's nothing more illegal on Wikipedia - it's our equivalent of asking for a jury trial IRL, you can spend your life in "jail" for it). You don't actually have to start editing again, just get unblocked to improve the "balance of power" on these articles. If you're (not implausibly) afraid that you'll keep getting dragged back into disputes by editors who have more arguing to do, then at least by getting unblocked you make it fully legitimate for you to start a new account at a later date instead of using this one, if you wish to avoid the arguments. In any case, I thank you for the work done, and I hope you'll read over the DYK discussions as they include some genuinely useful feedback on your writing. Wnt (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 9 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article FISA Improvements Act, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, sponsor of the rival USA Freedom Act, said the FISA Improvements Act would "allow unrestrained spying on the American people"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/FISA Improvements Act. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thanks from → Call me Hahc21) 16:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 19 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stop Watching Us, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Stop Watching Us, a protest against mass surveillance, was supported by an EFF video featuring director Oliver Stone and actor John Cusack? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stop Watching Us. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 01:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi HectorMoffet, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amash-Conyers Amendment 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/Amash-Conyers Amendment 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. Launchballer 16:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:List of votes on the Amash/Conyers Amendment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 21:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The First Book of Napoleon 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 First Book of Napoleon 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. FyzixFighter (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article The Book of Nullification has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability criteria of WP:GNG/WP:NBOOKS, nor is there evidence that it could satisfy the criteria for non-contemporary books.

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.

Please consider improving the article 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. FyzixFighter (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Book of Nullification 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 Book of Nullification 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. FyzixFighter (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article The Healing of the Nations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria of WP:GNG or of the more specific WP:NBOOKS, particularly that of significant coverage in multiple sources. All claims in article of notability appear to be cases of inherited notability.

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.

Please consider improving the article 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. FyzixFighter (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Healing of the Nations 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 Healing of the Nations 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. FyzixFighter (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your outstanding contributions for Featured Pictures in 2014 you are hereby award this WikiProject Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 08:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Air Force installations in the Continental US has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:IMG-NJGov has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Courage Foundation, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Courage Foundation and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Courage Foundation during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Section 215 of the Patriot Act, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Section 215 of the Patriot Act and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Section 215 of the Patriot Act during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there. A page you created Draft:Martin Keene has sat for a very long time without any progress being made on it. Looking at what you've done, I'm wondering if it is every likely that this page will be accepted into mainspace. I looked at the 3 references provided and considering they are passing mentions, at best, if notability of this biograph has been sufficently demonstrated (or will ever be demonstrated). As I see your blocked, if you could let me know what you would like to do with this draft here on your talk page, I will see what I can do to try and clean up the situation. If I don't hear back in a month I'll assume you are agreeable to letting this page be deleted without prejudice to re-creation if more content/notability is established for the subject. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same question on Draft:Offnow. Has any content from Offnow actually made it into enacted legislation or have they recieved credit for helping craft the legislation? From what I can tell, there's no content for that, so I think that it might be good to go ahead and delete this without prejudice to re-creation if and when they recieve notability for helping craft legislation. Same deadline for hearing back/deletion as above. Hasteur (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same question on Draft:Bill of Rights Defense Committee Hasteur (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Martin Keene, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Martin Keene and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Martin Keene during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Offnow, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Offnow and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Offnow during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Bill of Rights Defense Committee, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bill of Rights Defense Committee and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Bill of Rights Defense Committee during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Show only to logged in users has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. McGeddon (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Larry Reid (councilmember) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sign here of meeting our notability guidelines for politicians. Sources listed have only passing mentions of Reid.

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. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability doesn't apply to drafts, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability doesn't apply to drafts and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Notability doesn't apply to drafts during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. KMF (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neil Newhouse 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/Neil Newhouse 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. Thalium (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:George Zimmerman Mugshot gray.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Samuel C. Bennett 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/Samuel C. Bennett 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 14:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Benjamin Warrington 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/Benjamin Warrington 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portal:Mass surveillance, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mass surveillance and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Mass surveillance during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Fourth Amendment Restoration Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Proposed legislation that did not advance in Congress. Media coverage is sparse and does not rise to the level of significant coverage required by WP:GNG.

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. Edge3 (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Edge3 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:US Air Force Installations in the Central Command has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:US Air Force Installations in the Europe Command has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:US Air Force installations in the Pacific Command has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America 2011 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Book of Mormon therefore v wherefore has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:RepBobbyRush Hoodie.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:1 Nephi priority has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention 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/Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention (2nd nomination) 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.

Desertarun (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]