| Revision as of 13:52, 10 December 2007 editPedro (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators22,741 edits →WP:RFA: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:00, 17 September 2024 edit undoFastilyBot (talk | contribs)Bots239,264 edits BOT: Some of your contributions may require attention | ||
| (938 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{not around|3=7 December 2015}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Indiana alerts}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] ] ] ] ] ] | |||
| Hi,<br> | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=693174033 --> | |||
| == Proposed deletion of List of mayors of Princeton, Indiana == | |||
| ] | |||
| The article ] has been ]  because of the following concern: | |||
| ==RFA opposing== | |||
| :'''Mayors of communities the size of Princeton are usually not notable.''' | |||
| Please stop opposing candidates simply for being a self-nom. It is ] in the process. If you want it changed, debate it on ]. What you are doing now is in violation of ]. <font face="Broadway">]'']</font>'' 22:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ]. | |||
| :I'll echo what Zman says, with the addition that accusing folks of power hunger is not ]. If I see another string of opposes like that, I'll block for disruption on RFA, and disruption to ]. I'll do this to prevent further disruption. ] 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| This has been brought up before. Giving one's opinion on an admin candidate at RFA is not disruption; it's precisely what RFA is for. Feel free to say it's a misguided opinion, but threatening to block for this is inappropriate in my opinion. ] ] 23:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ], is the complaint department really on ] 18:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Blocked== | |||
| == File:IN-icon.gif listed for discussion == | |||
| I've blocked you for your continual disruption of Misplaced Pages. There is discussion of this decision at ] and I will ask that someone makes representation to any discussion on your behalf if you ask. ] 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] 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. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 21:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :This has been considered in the past, and the general consensus is that my actions are perfectly legitimate and not worthy of a block. See ]. There are several assertions that what I am doing is "disruptive", but no one has actually been able to point to any actual disruption. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 23:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| ::There is ongoing discussion at ] - consensus can change and I believe it's worth checking to see if there has been any change in consensus. If there hasn't, I'm sure you'll be unblocked. If you have a problem with self nominations at RfA, you need to argue for changes to the process, not penalise those editors using the framework as it currently stands. ] 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| :::By all means, if you want to gauge consensus then file another RfC. Until you can establish that the prior consensus no longer holds, however, there is no reason to block me--and given that I have never been blocked over this before anyway, an indef block is ''totally'' uncalled for. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] 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. | |||
| Per ], I was perfectly justified in believing that the Misplaced Pages community did not view my actions as disruptive and blockworthy. Since that RfC, nothing had happened to indicate to me that the community consensus had changed. At the very least, then, it was absurd to block me indefinitely ''without warning''. If the consensus has changed and what I am doing is no longer acceptable, I will stop--but neither at the time I did my most recent opposes nor when Nick blocked me was there absolutely anything to suggest that. | |||
| 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.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 03:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
| I'm willing to stop at least until this matter is sorted out, and if community consensus indicates that it is not acceptable then I will stop altogether. I'm aware that consensuses (consensi?) can change; the point is, though, that there was no reason for me to think that it had. At the very least, a warning, giving me a chance to stop, would have been appropriate before blocking me for engaging in behavior I had every reason to think the community agreed was perfectly legitimate. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 00:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Please claim your upload(s): ] == | |||
| Look, anyone who reads this. There's no need to go to Arbcom here. There's no need for me to agree to a self-imposed, PERMANENT, ban from RfA either. It's very simple. There was an RfC on this earlier. On my own accord, I stopped engaging in the contested behavior until a very clear consensus emerged on the RfC that what I was doing was perfectly legitimate. I'll do the same again. I'll stop until this matter is re-resolved, and if it turns out that consensus is against me, I'll stop altogether. But if consensus is that I'm still in the right, why should I stop doing something the community as a whole believes is OK just because a ''few people don't like it''? | |||
| Hi, | |||
| File another RfC, see if consensus has changed. I'm willing to abide by it however it turns out. But this rush to ArbCom, or to get me to agree to an unconditional self-ban from RfA, is ridiculous. This just reeks of you being afraid that the community might disagree with you. | |||
| Thank you, for uploading this file. | |||
| However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Misplaced Pages is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm some details, | |||
| When I did my RfA opposes earlier today, I had every reason to believe that the community saw no problem with what I was doing. Subsequent events--which took place ''after'' my last oppose--indicate that that might no longer be the case. That's fine. I'm willing to abide by community consensus, even if I disagree with it. What more do you want? ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 00:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If it's your own work, please include {{tl|own}}, amend the {{tl|information}} added by a third party, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add <code><nowiki>|claimed=yes</nowiki></code> to the {{tl|media by uploader}} or {{tl|presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{tl|information}} where appropriate). | |||
| :Just to be clear, ''I'' don't think you should be banned from RFAs. I was suggesting to people who would otherwise block you to ask arbcom for such a ban if they really thought some bureaucratic solution was necessary here. I believe you're being perfectly reasonable here, and you ''did'' have good reason to believe your RFA opposes, though unpopular, were not a serious problem. I think people are jumping the gun here. If I was a bit more bold I'd unblock you now, but reversal of admin actions seems unpopular lately. Still, if there are more people who think you should be unblocked, I suspect it will happen soon. ] ] 00:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If it's not your own work please provide as much sourcing/authorship information as you are able to. | |||
| :Also, to be clear... your actions are clearly disruptive. I am not interested in having a protracted discussion on disruptive behavior. Understand that I am not going to reblock you if you are unblocked. If you are unblocked without assurances that the disruptive behavior will stop, I will be asking the arbitrators to arbitrate this. ] 01:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| It would also be appreciated if you could "claim" or update the source and licensing on other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created . | |||
| :You think they're clearly disruptive. A lot of other people don't. Certainly, in late August/September the consensus was that they weren't disruptive. If that consensus still holds, what then? | |||
| :That's my problem here...you don't care what the community thinks; you only care what you think. RfC is the proper means of resolving this, if you think it's a problem. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 01:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not interested in wasting folks time here. There is already a RFC. There are also the ''recent'' comments on AN, ANI, BN, WT:RFA, and your talk you should be able to garner consensus. ] 01:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::No one's time will be wasted. The original RfC indicates that the consensus is that what I'm doing is fine. AN/I indicates that consensus ''may'' have changed, but it's still not a broad community discussion--it's just a few people--and frankly, even among those there's no clear consensus to overturn the old one. To find out for sure, you start an RfC and solicit the input of the community as a whole. This is the proper way to go about this matter. Quite frankly, ArbCom will probably reject any case you file with it for this very reason anyway. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 01:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. | |||
| ==Block?== | |||
| ] (]) 14:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == ]: Voting now open! == | |||
| Further to the above Kurt, welcome back to RFAs, your cut and paste opposes to every self-nomination were missed. Now, I don't agree with your stance, and would like to see you balancing out this karma by supporting those who do not self-nominate (try being constructive!). | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Kmweber. Voting in the ''']''' 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. | |||
| However - and this is to ''anyone'' thinking of coming to Kurt's talk page and threatening him with a block - you have a right to oppose on any standard you see fit. It is not disruptive to do so. Opposing based on self-nomination is no better or worse than opposing based on edit count or percentage of edits to the foospace. I would like to see you be more constructive, though. Support an RFA, at least once - it feels awesome :) ] ] 11:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == The offer stands == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| I will refrain from doing what I've been doing on RfAs until the current community consensus is re-evaluated. I will abide by its outcome either way. | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/4&oldid=750541749 --> | |||
| == ]: Voting now open! == | |||
| What I will ''not'' do is give in just because a few Internet bullies have nothing better to do all day than try to harass and threaten me into submission. If community consensus is against you, tough for you. I am willing to abide by community consensus either way. These attempts to get me to agree to a self-imposed, unconditional ban from RfA do nothing but show contempt for community consensus, and I'm not going to sanction it. I'm not going to play this ridiculous game. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 13:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| {{Ivmbox|Hello, Kmweber. Voting in the ''']''' 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. | |||
| I have unblocked based on this. I invite those who insist your RFA behavior is a problem to take the matter up at RFC. ] ] 13:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| :There has already been an RFC - see ]. The broad consensus was that Kurt's RFA activity was neither big nor clever, but it was not blockworthy and he is entitled to voice an opinion in such a way. I would suggest any admin who decides to block him based on his RFA votes in future reviews that RFC first. ] ] 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree. I am painfully aware of the RFC and this is why I'm quite dismayed that this block happened. I was tempted to unblock as soon as I saw it (Nick even did say to "feel free") but by the time I got there, several people were ''supporting'' the block, so all I felt was appropriate was arguing against the block rather than undoing it. If anyone says "we need to tolerate less trolling" I'll agree with them. But this does ''not'' mean that anyone who gets accused of trolling ''is'' trolling. I can only conclude there is more to the story than we know about so far. I don't know how to explain the bizarre block otherwise. It greatly concerns me when people invoke the holy power of Jimbo, do an indefinite block, and then provide only hand-waving when asked for an explanation. ] ] 23:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/4&oldid=750541749 --> | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of Template:ISSMA Finalist == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 23:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI notification == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| But this time for a positive reason. See the section titled "Remove editing restriction on Kmweber". ] (]) 21:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Hey Kurt, I'm not here to beat down on you or anything, I respect your right to express your opinion at RFAs. I wanted to let you know that your oppose was replied to at my RFA by Jmlk and others. I was wondering if perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look? Thanks in advance. ]''']''' 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Your restriction on editing project namespace has been rescinded by community consensus. If you decide to come back, welcome back, and if not best of luck in whatever you are doing. ] (]) 02:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==MfD nomination of ]== | |||
| ] ], a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] 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.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ] (]) 05:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hey! Based on your edits to '']'', I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a ] for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-]<span style="background-color:#ff0000; color: #e8ff00"> (])</span> 05:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Request for arbitration == | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] 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. | |||
| I have ] 19:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :oh, for goodness sake. Kurt, my talk page and email are always open if you want any advice. ] ] 22:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I doubt that the arbitrators will accept this case, but if they do, please don't hesitate to contact me if you need help. Also, could you please reply on my RfA if you have any other comments? ] | |||
| :::I've been wanting to, but I've been reluctant to do so since this whole thing blew up lest someone twist it into accusing me of breaking my agreement to refrain from engaging in the activity in question while this is sorted out. I realize that that's hardly what I'm doing at all--explaining a prior "vote" is by no means the same as casting a new one--but it wouldn't surprise me if certain individuals tried to claim that it is. I realize the vast majority of people will be sane enough to realize how absurd that claim is, but it's still something that might give them ammo. I'd rather not get sidetracked fighting that; I'd rather not give them the ammunition to throw at me. | |||
| ::::And I thought about putting it on your talk page instead, but the argument then will be that I just did that to sidestep the letter of what I offered to do, while still violating the spirit of it. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::]. ] | |||
| :One bit of advice - I think the tone of the message ("''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger") upsets people more then the reason behind the opposition (even if they won't admit it). Perhaps a rewording in future to something a little more neutral? And supporting RFAs where there has been a nomination (as this seems to be your sole criteria) might go somewhat to convincing people you are acting in good faith. I think the RFArb will be thrown out fairly shortly, so there's no need to engage in it. ] ] 09:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 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.<!-- Template:afd notice --> <span style="color:orange">'''THE NEW'''</span> ]] 17:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == My Rfa == | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="afd-notice"> | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] 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. | |||
| Thanks for voting in my Rfa, which I withdrew from yesterday. Though I did not get promoted, I see this Rfa as being a success nonetheless. What I got out of this Rfa will help me to be a better, all around editor. Because of this Rfa I have decided to become better in other areas of editing. I'm not going to just be a vandalfighter. Though vandalfighting is good, being active in all areas of editing is even better. Have a nice day.--] 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| {| style="width:100%; margin-top:1.2em;" | |||
| <!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ], is the complaint department really on ] 22:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| |style="width:50%; color:#000" align="right"|<span style="line-height:8pt;font-size:0.7em;font-weight:normal;">Click "show" to see my message.</span> | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| {|style="border-spacing:8px; margin:0px -8px;" width=100% | |||
| ] | |||
| |class="MainPageBG" style="width:50%; border:1px solid #cedff2; background:#f5faff; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"| | |||
| {|width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="vertical-align:top; background:#f5faff;" class="collapsible collapsed" | |||
| ! <h2 style="margin:0; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;">What is meant to be and what is not... </h2> | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="color:#000;" align="left"|Thank you for your recent comments and vote at my Request for Adminship. It was not successful. I don't believe this is unfortunate as it leaves me with much to ponder and a fresh slate from which I can better myself as an editor in order to be more compliant with the policies that are expected by Misplaced Pages. | |||
| The file ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| If you feel that there is anything that was not covered by the RfA that I need improvement in, I would implore your input and feedback as I hope and intend to improve as best I'm guided. | |||
| <blockquote>'''Unused, low-res, no obvious use.'''</blockquote> | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| All the best in your own endeavours in the real world, and also when you're not on Misplaced Pages. ]] 14:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| |} | |||
| |} | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| == Thanks for helping out == | |||
| Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> --]<sup>«¦]¦»</sup> 11:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| I saw you were undoing a lot of colored text per ] and I wanted to stop by and say thanks. Also, funny story: I was reverting some racist ] and saw your edit summary and thought, well, that you were removing ''colored'' (as in ]) for a split second. Obviously, you were actually removing literally colored (as in ]) sections, but I thought it was kind of funny that that popped into my mind. :P Anyway, keep up the great work, and cheers =) --]<small><sup>\ ] /</sup></small> 21:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :You're welcome...from a fellow Kurt. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| == Your RfA comments == | |||
| ] | |||
| The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| I've been giving some more thought to how I feel about your RfA comments, in the context of my prior outside view and the other comments on the RfC, your recent block and the ensuing discussions, and the pending request for arbitration. You are probably right to point out that the consensus on the RfC that your automatic oppose comments against any self-nominated admin candidate were not sufficiently problematic to warrant a block or other sanction, and that you might be within your rights to make such comments. On the other hand, I also think it's quite noteworthy that after you have posted such oppose !votes in dozens of RfA's, as far as I can tell not a single user appears ever to have actually agreed with the substance of your position, either in a specific RfA, in the RfC, or elsewhere. In light of the overwhelming consensus that self-nominations are entirely permissible on RfA (in fact, they originally were the only method of nomination), and the fact that your comments have elicited continuously negative reactions, I wonder if you would now consider no longer posting automatic opposes based on the method of nomination, and instead tailoring your support or oppose positions more specifically to the qualifications of the nominees. Regards, ] 21:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>'''Notability not established with substantive independent sources, simply a mirror of https://issma.net/mbhistory.php'''</blockquote> | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| :It's quite simple. In my mind, the mere fact that a user self-nominates is inherently enough to outweigh any other positive qualifications he may have, so anything else is irrelevant. And I do not object to people self-nominating themselves; my objection is to those people becoming administrator. To compare it between real-world politics, it's the difference between not allowing Communists to run for office and simply not voting for one--I have no problem with them running, but I'm sure as hell not going to support them. | |||
| :If anything, allowing self-noms helps to separate the wheat from the chaff. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 14:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I do respect your right to that opinion, but I would strongly urge you to consider rephrasing what you write. The way you currently phrase it effectively accuses any self-nominating candidate of power hunger. This is an unwarranted assumption of bad faith. If you'd simply state that you disagree with self-nominations, you'd probably not get as much negative attention. Accusing people of power hunger for doing something explicitly encouraged by the community is hardly proper behavior. ] ] 23:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :NYbrad, this user self-nominated, and was turned down by the community. This may be aprapos of nothing, but I thought it worth at least mentioning. ] 13:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| ==Thanks!== | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|lightblue}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''My RFA''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thanks for participating in ], which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. | |||
| Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> | |||
| Sorry I haven't been able to reply to your email, I fired my servers' admin the other day and my mail service is messed up. ] | |||
| |} | |||
| '''<span style="color: red;">This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual page for details.</span>''' Thanks, ] (]) 10:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == A question about your RfA oppose votes == | |||
| Hi. I will not attack or criticise your oppose votes in RfA which seems to be very unpopular with users and has caused alot of debate, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I would like to ask you a question about your votes. I am quite interested to hear your opinion on why you think self noms are a sign of power hunger. Also what do you think an admin's job is? Can I also point out ], a failed RfA where you self nominated yourself. Does this mean you yourself were power hungry? Although you don't have to answer these questions, I would like to hear your opinion. Once again I have nothing against your opinions. Thanks. ]<small>]</small> 18:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : What you and others are failing to grasp is that there is a huge difference between the legitimate scope of administrator action and the ''de facto'' practical capability they possess to do great harm. I have addressed this, and every other question you ask, at several other locations; a simple search of this talk page's archives and the RfC will, I think, provide you with the answers you seek. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 14:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the reply. <s>I am aware that admins can do great harm which is why admins should be users trusted by the community but I don't understand how whether the user was self nominated or nominated by another user, alone can be used to determine this. Your previous comments don't really address this. Do you mind clarifying it for me? Thanks. ]<small>]</small> 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)</S> You've just address this above. Thanks. ]<small>]</small> 20:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == GlassCobra's RfA == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|lightblue}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''My RFA''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" |Hello Kurt! I wanted to thank you for participating in ], which ended with '''61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral'''. I know that you opposed for what many feel is a contentious reason, but as I said before, I support your right to hold certain beliefs and express them. I also wanted to tell you that if you ever need help or a second opinion anywhere, I'm your guy. :) Stay well! ]''']''' 02:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:white; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| Thank you for voicing your opinions in my recent ] which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to take the advice the community has given me and wait till someone nominates me next time as well as improve my editing skills. Have a great day(or night)! --] ] 05:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| == Re: Why are my opposes any worse than anyone else's? == | |||
| Your opposes are worse, because they're not based in anything real. You know very well that self-nominations aren't "''Prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger", yet you blanket every self-nomination with opposes, using that spurious reasoning. It shows no clear thinking, no good faith attempt to delve into the candidate's background, nothing other than your own ]-y way of making a statement about what you think about self-nominations. You do realize that self-noms are encouraged by the instructions at the very page where you wallpaper every self-nom with your opposes, right? This makes your opposes far worse than most, because your "reasoning" is not reasoning at all. It shows disrespect for the candidate, the process, and the project overall. ] 13:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : They're very much based on something real--my own observations of human nature and of what's happened on Misplaced Pages in the three years I have been here. I do indeed believe that it constitutes ''prima facie'' evidence of power-hunger; if I did not then I would not claim it did. That you disagree it does not make it spurious; it is a legitimate position based on my own observations. In my judgment, the mere fact that someone self-nominates is indeed enough to overcome anything he might have going in his favor; thus there's no need to look into his background. Again, you clearly disagree with this, but that does not make it an illegitimate position. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 16:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's demonstrable fact that you are wrong. There are plenty of good editors who have self-nommed, and plenty of bad ones who were nommed by someone else. As to your own self-nom, while I won't claim it's ''prima facie'' evidence of your disruptive pointiness, I will say it's powerful circumstantial evidence of it. ] 17:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Now you're just building a straw man. I have never, '''never''' claimed that everyone who self noms will be an abusive administrator, or that all abusive administrators were self-nominated. All I'm saying is that, in my judgment, the fact that someone self-nominates means that there is a ''greater risk'' that he will be an abusive administrator--great enough, in fact, to warrant opposing everyone who self-nominates regardless of what he might have in his favor. | |||
| :::And as for your claim that this is all "sour grapes", why did I wait until nearly ''two years after that'' to start opposing self-nominations? Heaven forbid someone might actually ''change his mind''. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You do know what ''prima facie'' means, right? (Not trying to be snarky or mean, I'm honestly wondering, because just because something is considered ''prima facie'' evidence does not mean that it cannot be rebutted... in fact, that's pretty much the whole thrust of it.) —] ] ] 17:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Point taken...perhaps that's not the best word choice. Got any suggestions? ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I was actually referring to KSB, since he said that since there is evidence of good self-noms, it can't be ''prima facie'' evidence. Yes, it can. —] ] ] 18:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::From the 'Pedia: "a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts", which finding self-nommed admins that are good ones shows that self-nomming in itself can't be used as ''prima facie'' anything. ] 18:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Not to interject, but, yes, that's correct -- but put the emphasis on "appears." ''Prima facie'' literally means (if my high school Latin doesn't fail me) "first appearance." Looking at the WP entry (hey, my Latin was right -- woohoo!) it says "prima facie denotes evidence that '''(unless rebutted)''' would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact." (emphasis added) So it ''can'' be rebutted - as I think your example does. But is Kurt's opinion then "false," as I think you're arguing? (Ok, I just begged a tautology...) --]] 18:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::For the record, if there are many examples of admins who self-nommed, but do not display "power hunger", then yes, Weber's opinion is then "false." ] 20:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <----undent | |||
| :I think so, and here's why. My examples of good self-nommed admins and bad multi-nommed admins provide evidence GOING INTO the RfA process that self-nomming does not qualify as ''prima facie'' evidence of "power hunger." As such, reasoning to that effect makes little sense. ] 18:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok, but here's the tautology: An opinion is neither true nor false; if it were, it would be a fact. His view, based on the evidence as he sees it, is apparently that your examples don't mean what you think they mean. (For one thing, you may well consider "good" an admin that Kurt might think is too power-hungry. Or another person might consider that admin both good '''and''' power-hungry...thereby agreeing with both you and Kurt.) There are hundreds of permutations -- but given the evidence he's looked at, Kurt apparently considers self-nomination to be prima facie evidence of what he considers power-hunger...and that's his opinion, for better or worse. --]] 19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ;re<nowiki>:</nowiki> I am not responsible for the choices of others | |||
| ]. — '''Dorftrot]''' 17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::And here's the rub: if he can pull any "standard" he wants out of his hat, with no truly objective criteria, what's the point of RfA? ] 19:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To aggregate opinions. Best, --]] 20:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If individual opinions can not be differentiated based on objective standards, what's the point of "aggregating opinions"? It puts me in the mind of a saying I heard once, whilst I was still growing up in the countryside of western Kansas: "A whole lotta cluckin' but not a lotta egg-layin." ] 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::My favorite was always "God willin' and the crick don' rise." Neither of those relates to anything in this discussion, but they are fun to say. Anyways, what does it mean to say that individual opinions cannot be differentiated based on objective standards? Here is an objective standard: the candidate has/does not have 4000 edits. Would something like that be enough to determine adminship (if so, then community commentary is unnecessary -- the candidate either does, or does not, have enough edits.) That's the argument you seem to be making, but I don't think it's your argument. In any event, Kurt's would seem closer to an objective standard than most -- isn't your argument that he uses an objective standard that he feels is reliable, but that you feel is unreliable? So then it's just an argument about whether his or your opinion is ''right'' -- which is, in a real sense, an argument that can never be resolved. However (and here is the magic of a wiki), if you get enough opinions together, then hopefully they reach something called consensus - which isn't really "right" or "wrong," but rather reflects the will of the community and (we hope) reaches good results most of the time. (By the way, I should ask Kurt if it's ok to carry on with this on his talk page -- I don't want to monopolize it.) --]] 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <----undent | |||
| ::Surely you're not claiming that opinions can never be objectively wrong, or objectively right? Let's say that I'm of the opinion that the fact tha Sen. Obama is black disqualifies him from being president. (Disclaimer: I'm actually a nominal supporter of the good senator's, which is why I chose him for my example.) Is this opinion wrong? I say yes, and demonstrably so. Now, I'm not attempting to equate KMW's blanket oppositions with racism. The point I'm making is that opinions CAN be objectively wrong. In this case, the opinion Mr. Weber holds toward self-nominations is objectively wrong, as has been clearly demonstrated. ] 01:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure. An opinion isn't objectively right or wrong -- for example, if you said that the Earth were flat it would be demonstrably false . . . but it would be a demonstrably false ''fact''. The ''sine qua non'' of an opinion is that it is neither provable nor disprovable. So, actually, I'd say that the opinion that Sen. Obama (who was one of my professors in law school, by the way, and who you should definitely vote for if given the chance) was unqualified to be president on the basis of his race is not wrong, ''per se'' . . . I just think it's stupid. It's not a demonstrably true fact that Mr. Obama's race has no bearing on his likely performance as president, it's just an opinion that enjoys extremely broad support (and rightly so, in my view.) There's no way to objectively measure presidential performance, no way to tell if race influences it (particularly since we only elect rich old white guys), and therefore only 250 million opinions. Here Kurt is offering an opinion with which I and everyone else I've seen disagree . . . but it's an opinion nonetheless. --]] 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ah, now I see what our point of disagreement really is: I view his "''prima facie''" statement as a claim of fact about the nominee, in which case it would be demonstrably untrue; you view it simply as one man's opinion, thus not necessarily ''wrong'', but rather ''wrongly conceived''. Have I accurately described our differences? ] 04:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think that's fair -- that it's my opinion that it's in fact an opinion and your opinion that it's in fact a fact. (Any puns intended). Best (and going to bed), --]] 04:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Though we didn't really get to the bottom of the underlying question ("Does Weber have a wikiright to post such opposes at RfA?"), it's been an interesting philolawyerly discussion, which I've enjoyed immensely. Best regards, ] 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :If I were to oppose based on a concern that self-nomination suggests a desire for power to the extent they should all be opposed, I would word it "Oppose - I consider self-nominations to be an indication the user is chiefly concerned with acquiring power rather than improving the encyclopedia". My personal opinion is that this is not the case (I self-nominated, and I don't think I'm a power-hungry despot), but that's how I'd word it. ] ] 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, perhaps not power-hungry, but definitely a despot! (Just kidding...rule on, brother, rule on.) --]] 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Kmweber, you are free to have any opinion you want, no matter how baseless it is. You are just making yourself look bad by your opposes. BTW, are you powerhungry? You self-nominated in the past ].--] 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::He knows that, has addressed it, and from what I gather he has based his concerns over the process as he has seen it unfold. His assertion is probably different than it once was, and everyone is entitled to change their opinion. His opposes aren't hurting anyone. As I have had conversations with him in the past, I'm starting to respect him more for his tenacity and his willingness to respond. ] ] 01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Image copyright problem with Image:State Road 66 Western Terminus.jpg== | |||
| ] | |||
| Thank you for uploading ]. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes ] very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the '''license''' and the '''source''' of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a ''']''' to the ]. | |||
| If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the ]. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. ] 00:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] and power hunger == | |||
| I have another question about your self-nom rationale. It occurred to me that according to your (and apparently not only your) logic, users who consult ] display a far more obvious power hunger, don't they? They just go about it in a more professional manner, which seems to be even worse, speaking in what I think may well be your logic, if I'm not completely mistaken. Your opinion on that would really interest me a lot. I ] I ] I 23:42, ], 2007 | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Just a note, you're probably going to want to add more content to that article ASAP, or someone is going to try and nuke it again. ] 02:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Speedy deletion of ]== | |||
| ] A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the ], articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please ], as well as our subject-specific ]. | |||
| If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on ''']''' 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. ] • <sup>(]•])</sup> 23:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)<!-- Template:Db-bio-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> | |||
| == All we are saying.... == | |||
| ] ] (]) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| If you get a chance, could you please review this article? It's been on ] for a couple months... Thanks, ] (]) 21:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I might if I have time; however, I'm not too familiar with the FA procedure or criteria. ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I'm asking you very nicely to consider striking this. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 13:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:00, 17 September 2024
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Kmweber has not edited Misplaced Pages since 7 December 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
ArbCom elections are now open!
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 Misplaced Pages 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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of List of mayors of Princeton, Indiana
The article List of mayors of Princeton, Indiana has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Mayors of communities the size of Princeton are usually not notable.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
File:IN-icon.gif listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IN-icon.gif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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. Cloudbound (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Morton J. Marcus for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Morton J. Marcus is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Morton J. Marcus 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. LK (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Please claim your upload(s): File:Mt. Vernon Post Office.jpg
Hi, Thank you, for uploading this file.
However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Misplaced Pages is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm some details,
If it's your own work, please include {{own}}, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).
If it's not your own work please provide as much sourcing/authorship information as you are able to.
It would also be appreciated if you could "claim" or update the source and licensing on other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
:_File:Mt._Vernon_Post_Office.jpg){kind=link}
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Kmweber. 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Kmweber. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
Nomination for deletion of Template:ISSMA Finalist
Template:ISSMA Finalist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
ANI notification
But this time for a positive reason. See the section titled "Remove editing restriction on Kmweber". Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your restriction on editing project namespace has been rescinded by community consensus. If you decide to come back, welcome back, and if not best of luck in whatever you are doing. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Talk:Alonzo Sargent
Talk:Alonzo Sargent, 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 Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Alonzo Sargent and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Alonzo Sargent 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. Anmccaff (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates
Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 05:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Rupert Jee for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rupert Jee is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rupert Jee 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. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of List of mayors of Princeton, Indiana for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of mayors of Princeton, Indiana is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Princeton, Indiana 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? 22:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of File:Kurt-tirben-flag.png
The file File:Kurt-tirben-flag.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused, low-res, no obvious use.
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax 11:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of List of ISSMA Marching Band finalists
The article List of ISSMA Marching Band finalists has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Notability not established with substantive independent sources, simply a mirror of https://issma.net/mbhistory.php
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories: