User talk:1337freek

Shomrim (volunteers)

Hi, just a note about the Wall Street Journal paywall: In the first few days that the article is posted, you can view it in its entirety on the WSJ site. But within a week it disappears. My friend helped me find this posting on another site. Best, Yoninah (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with August 6, 2011 NATO helicopter crash. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to say the same thing, but without the template. The article is being considered for deletion because an editor nominated it in good faith. A discussion is taking place which you are welcome to contribute to. The debate will eventually be closed with a decision on whether or not the article should be kept. One way to counter the arguments for deletion is to improve the article. Sometimes an AfD nomination results in substatial improvement of an article and the nominator withdraws nomination. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any discussion on the matter, so I should win out by default. Also it seems like a roundabout way to improve the article. Personally, I believe that the "confusion" tag thats up right now is much better and more to the point. --pastasauce (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussions take place on an AFD discussion page, which for this article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 NATO helicopter crash. And there's ben plenty of discussion there, both yesterday and today. - BilCat (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I only noticed this 30 minutes ago and I saw the massive amount conversation thats taking place. I shut up now. --pastasauce (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lakewood Vaad

The article Lakewood Vaad has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

this article is poorly written, with very few sources, and for the most part it reads like spam.

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. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]