User talk:EnglishEfternamn

All replies to comments, concerns, and queries will be posted here.

All speech is welcome here on the following grounds:

That it pertains to information relevant to one or more of the Wikimedia projects
That it complies with civility rules
That it does not contain forms of vandalism, including unauthorised modification of user comments of others
Discussions which I determine to be "age-old", in that the relevant subject matter is no longer significant in any paricipating user's present situation, will be archived.

Thank you for your cooperation and if you can conform to these guidelines, please feel free to voice your opinion.EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 01:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, EnglishEfternamn! Thank you for your contributions. I am TheOriginalSoni and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

=)EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 01:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you ought to get a proper welcome now that you're back :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate this! EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 01:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you replace the shadow effect in your signature by bold, or something else. It's kind of hard to read in the shadow effect. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did it. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 02:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Longboarding

Howdy! I've left you a note there but I thought I'd leave a note here too. It seems you and I stumbled on the same article at the same time. I've been keeping an eye on Longboard (skateboard) for a while, trying to stop promo-spammer inserting the name of their garage skateboard/longboard company into various articles (which happens about once a week). Today, some of that promo-spam led across to me Longboarding where I had a quick crack at cleaning up, then noticed your note.

I've been a member of WP:SKATE for a while now (feel free to join us!) and there are plenty of related articles that need work. More than happy to work with you to fix that particular one. Cheers, Stalwart111 22:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Btw do you longboard? I do. It's cool to see people interested in skating on Wikipedia. I'm looking for authoritative pages that talk about the basic techniques, sliding, carving, pumping, etc. Most of what the article says is spot on, however, there are virtually no sources. It'd be an awesome article if it was fully encyclopedic, and would draw new viewers to WP too. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 23:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not longboarding, no, just the "regular" kind of skateboarding, though less and less in my old age! Ha ha. But, like you, I found most of the skateboarding-related pages to be completely inadequate so I joined the Skateboarding Wikiproject and there's a few of us who work on skate articles in amongst other things. So far I've re-written Skateboarding styles, Skateboarding sponsorship and International Association of Skateboard Companies. In collaboration with others, I've also started some new biographies. I've been trying to keep track of things here. There's another guy in the process of rewriting the primary skateboarding article, basically from scratch. He has some great sources! Sourcing the articles is possible, you just have to look (some times very hard). If I can do anything to help, just let me know. The other guys from the WikiProject are always helpful too! Stalwart111 01:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool! I can't skateboard but I'm pretty adept at longboarding. I like the latter more anyway because you can just roll around and enjoy the scenery. Well.. I think pages that talk about longboarding techniques would be helpful, as long as they're not forum stuff. Keep your eye out for them, I will too. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 19:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan! I've undone one of your edits but have no problem with you adding some of it back. We need to be careful to avoid any of the "how to" kind of stuff. We should be providing an account of what people do, not telling them how to do it. But I mostly undid that edit because about.com is a notoriously unreliable source, mostly because (like Wikipedia) it is user-generated. But if you can find an alternate source, go for it. Stalwart111 00:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be on the lookout. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 00:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Re your report at UAA — real names are suitable usernames [1] [2] NTox · talk 04:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That it is a real name is not the issue. See the description. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 04:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - If the user is promoting himself, that is a different issue than being a "Username for administrator attention". I've reverted the user in question, and tagged his template for deletion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you O.S. @NTox, the reviewing administrator has the right to determine whether a violation has taken place. If he rejects the claim altogether, I will happily accept that decision. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 04:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. TheOriginalSoni touched on it, but when the admin declines, the lesson is: real names are not promotional, so the username does not violate the policy about promotional usernames. Unless the name violates the policy for some other reason, there is no username issue. Rather, there is a potential neutrality/COI issue that the username helped expose. A separate issue. NTox · talk 05:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, and the COI issue was what I had in mind. Perhaps I should have left the username aspect out of this. Your concern is noted. I'll try to be more careful next time.EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 06:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re this one too - I don't want to get too hard on your case, but UAA needs proof in the form of edits or log entries that an account is promotional, not just the 'look' of promotion. Take a look next chance at the policy and UAA instructions; it's all explained there. NTox · talk 23:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I won't report another username until I am more familiar with the UAA policy. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 00:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie for DRM

MGray98 has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Great job on the Tanzania case on the DRN. I just closed the case for "resolved".

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you!EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 19:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback

Hello, I answered your question at the Teahouse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not cool

While it's good for spammers to be blocked, grave-dancing like this isn't appropriate, and, in fact, is more likely to encourage future disruption. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of meant it as a symbolic gesture that people who break the rules here get thrown off, but I realised it wasn't the best edit I've ever done. That's why I reverted it. Sorry, won't happen again.EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 22:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay...trust me, I understand your feeling. Promotional editing, spamming, and vandalism are so irritating, especially if you're the one who's right up against the person trying to keep an article neutral and in good condition, and so it totally feels good when the problematic editor is blocked (at least temporarily...it won't surprise me if s/he comes back under a new name). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Dad!

EnglishEfterman, please read your edits carefully. Doniago removed age-level ratings and failed to remove the sources that supported that information as shown here [3]. I then came in and removed the sources that he failed to remove, as shown here [4]. You then come and restore them, as shown here [5]. I then remove them and explain to you what you have just done, as shown here [6]. Despite that, you remove them again [7], stating something about a discussion about WP:DRN and policy.

Moreover, user Doniago was not focused on the content dispute in the content resolution dispute you participated in with him. He was still whining about me and his failure at the Administrative Noticeboards (as shown here [8] and here [9]). The rules of that discussion were to not bring in any other matters outside of the content dispute, but the user blatantly disobeyed that command and started whining about his failure at the Administrative Noticeboards to have me blocked. I'm wondering why he was never called out for this.

It was the umpteenth time the user disobeyed a command to treat the matter as a content dispute. He was told that by several different admins at the administrative noticeboards, editors, Help page individuals, etc. Meanwhile, I have been trying to debate this matter out in multiple forums Doniago opened up, such as shown here where another editor sees the matter my way [10]. But Doniago was too busy with a sole purpose of trying to get me blocked throughout the whole matter. Beyond different admins dismissing him at the Administrative noticeboards and telling him to focus on the content dispute, he's been on the talk pages of NUMEROUS editors asking them to vouch for him in trying to get me blocked. Doniago was busy asking nuuuumerous editors to support him in his aims while I was trying to debate out the matter, such as shown here [11], here [12], here [13], [14], here [15], here [16], and here [17], etc.

Regardless, I'm now done with this issue, but have informed the user that if harassment of this nature picks up again, he will be swiftly reported. Also, the supporting sources to age-level ratings need to be removed if the age-level ratings are removed, otherwise you're making it seem as though those links support the Annie Awards which they don't. AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just took care of it. Please understand I mean no hard feelings. The WP:DRN case is strictly a content dispute and in that regard the consensus rules in Doniago's favour. I did say that I would support him in terms of the incivility issues, but seeing as this feud between the two of you is CLEARLY so much more extensive than I realised, I'm neutral on the matter. I'm not taking sides between the two of you in regards to personal attacks. Outside the DRN case, you both will have to work this out some other way. Cheers.EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 00:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the Tea Party movement article

There is currently a discussion relating to the above topic at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Phase_2.

In case you are not aware, there is a suspended Arbcom case related to the editing of the TPm article, and the moderated discussion has been brought about as part of that process. Please comment there. The article is under discretionary sanctions.

I'd advise looking at this previous version of the page [18] that had a subsection on the Constitution in the Agenda section for material and sources that will be addressed in the ensuing discussion.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 06:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I will take a look at it.EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 07:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

Hi,

I just wanted to inform you that the reason you were reverted at the socialism article was because you were altering a QUOTE. A quote is something said by a person, and we cannot alter it the way we normally alter grammar and style in ordinary articles. We simply write whatever the person said/wrote. This is why other editors disagreed with your edit.

Hope you understand now, Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gee Wizz

Geeze whizz cheese whizz, thanks for welcoming me! I will give you a present! --1 Letter Wrong (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon

	Bacon Award
	Remember to grill it, not fry it 1 Letter Wrong (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol thanks EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 20:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, EnglishEfternamn. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions.
Message added 08:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LukeSurl^{t c} 08:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, EnglishEfternamn. You have new messages at Talk:Tea Party movement#corporate.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Hi, I'll be reviewing Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) in the next few days. Here's the review sheet so you can add it to your Watchlist. Thanks in advance for your work on the article! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 18:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, your quick response means a lot!EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 20:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Oh, and don't feel so hurried to work on the article. I can give you over a week to work on it. Thanks. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 00:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRN needs your help!

Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRN needs your help!

Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new face of DRN: EnglishEfternamn

Recently the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard underwent some changes in how it operates. Part of the change involved a new list of volunteers with a bit of information about the people behind the names.

You are listed as a volunteer at DRN currently, to update your profile is simple, just click here. Thanks, Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI August 2013

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--John (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: John, if you are reading this, I feel I have to assert myself. I have acknowledged the block and will not put that image in my page anymore. But I'm not going to "change my attitude" as Werieth demands. There's no WP policy on "attitudes". I have agreed to stop and I'm receiving what you believed was the appropriate sanction. I feel I have the right not to like everyone on Wikipedia, and I am certainly tired of seeing this user follow my userpage so closely. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 23:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your involvement with DRN

Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your involvement with DRN

Hi there, I noticed that you haven't been as active at DRN as you was before. DRN has been a bit backlogged lately and we could use some extra hands. We have updated our volunteer list to a new format, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers (your name is still there under the old format if you haven't updated it) and are looking into ways to make DRN more effective and more rewarding for volunteers (your input is appreciated!). If you don't have much time to volunteer at the moment, that's fine too, just move your name to the inactive list (you're free to add yourself back to active at any time). Hope to see you again soon :) Steven Zhang (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:EfternamnLogo.jpg.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EfternamnLogo.jpg.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. 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. Kelly ^hi! 14:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may delete it. I don't use that logo anymore. Thanks for letting me know.EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 00:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:InternetMemeWales.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:InternetMemeWales.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. KTC (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

DRN request

The request for assistance regarding My contributions to Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management made at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard has been closed and archived because the request was made manually rather than through our listing form. Unfortunately, doing so breaks the page automation at DRN handled by a couple of bots and can't be allowed to remain in place. Any of the parties to the dispute should feel free to refile using the listing form available through the "Request dispute resolution" button at the top of the page, if dispute resolution is still needed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC) (current DRN Coordinator) (Not watching)[reply]

Social Democrats USA

I suggest that you advise the participants to be civil and concise and to comment on content, not on contributors. That advice is always useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on? Are they getting rude? I'm gonna take a look now, this is the first time I've logged on here today. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 01:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NAC:Please keep discussion about articles subject to moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, not on moderator talk pages. If there are concerns about the conduct of a moderator, they can be taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You are a participant.

When the filing editor complains that I have removed information because of my politics, you should ask that the editor comment on edits rather than editors and comply with WP:AGF rather than repeat the concern about my political bias. When you repeat the questions about my alleged bias, after I have thrice asked you to read the article you claim to moderate and after I have thrice noted that the material is back in the article (in context, in the body, and in expanded form), it's time for you to step aside from this moderation and perhaps from others.

Your noticeboard might be useful for referring disputes to appropriate noticeboards, if moderators would screen complaints to check whether the participants have tried to use the talk page or to edit in a collaborative and NPOV fashion, first. I have trouble seeing any other productive role for it.

Dame Etna (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably keep this discussion on the page itself, for simplicity. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 10:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Good gravy!"[19]

Immediately before and after my post, Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) and Bishonen (talk · contribs) have raised concerns about your conduct as a moderator, suggesting that a discussion of your moderating conduct here may interest them and others (without further distraction at that noticeboard).

Dame Etna (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And they are perfectly welcome to do so. I only asked that the discussion be on the dispute noticeboard because that is where the discussion is. This case is not by me, mind you. It is about the conflict regarding SDUSA, lest we forget. To be honest, I am starting to think that stepping off this case and leaving it to someone else or suggesting you go to AN/I may be the best option. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 10:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why go to ANI? What administrative attention is needed? Why would I go?

Dame Etna (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DE, as you know, ANI is the place you go to when you need an administrator to arbitrate. I am not an administrator, nor do I want to be. But I can work this case out, maybe a trifle grundgingly , but I think I can come up with a good solution. But it will take time, and you will have to get used to my shall we say "unorthodox" moderating style. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 10:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm off to bed. Please continue the discussion on the page and I will rejoin you in about 12 hours. I really hope we can work something out. And no, I've no intention of stepping away from this case. I agreed to volunteer for it, this is my committment. Thank you, and cheerio. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 12:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have asked many times, please strike your violations of WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS when you commented on me rather than my edits:

GPRamirez, you allege that Dame Etna has removed sourced content on the grounds that the content removed may make this user's political views look bad. I'm not going to say anything on that until I further investigate this. D.E., it should be noted that if this is indeed true, the burden of proof will be on you to show us that you have removed this content because you truely feel it is not encyclopedic and that it has nothing to do with any political biases attached to these contributions.
I can't help but say at this point that removing peer reviewed academic info seems suspect for conduct on an encyclopedia. DE, I'm not taking sides against you, but I must ask, what was your reasoning for doing such?
My question for you DE, is, are you 100% sure that your political views have not clouted [sic.] your judgment on your assertion [sic.] that the SDUSA has no connection with centre-right politics?

The first quote is so badly written that it is hard to parse: Your working hypothesis is "this is true", but then you say that even so the burden of proof is on me, when my guilt was hypothesized. Your other edits showed serious problems with reading and writing, I am sorry to say. You just kept on writing despite repeated requests that you read the talk page of the article, which answered most of your questions.

These quotes (and others on that page) and your calling Bishonen's statement [20] "harassment" (before you removed it)[21] suggest that you should immediately stop trying to be a moderator, and not try again for a few years.

Dame Etna (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Robert, I draw your attention to your post which began this topic and to the summary you wrote when you archived this discussion. They appear inconsistent to me. Dame Etna (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My initial post was advice to the moderator about what to say at DRN. Subsequent discussion is about the article, or about the moderation of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interest in being an administrator

User EnglishEfternamn wrote "I am not an administrator, nor do I want to be"[22], while sporting an "I want to be an administrator" userbox [23], self-listing as an "administrative hopeful"[24], and listing RfA as on of a handful of Wikipedia interests [25] (and after having had an RfA[26]).

How many years shall it be before you try to have another RfA? Say 3?

Dame Etna (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dame Etna, please drop the stick and get off this well intentioned, DRN volunteer's talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DE, it would appear that you took my approach to the DRN case very very personally. That was not my intention. However, I must wonder why take part in this type of discussion in the first place if you did not believe it would help in anyway. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 22:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EnglishEfternamn:

I participate in discussions that are unlikely to waste my time, and I regretfully asked you to step aside only after several days of patient replies.

You accused me of attacking you, here, in your latest comment at the DRN. Please either substantiate your accusation with diffs or withdraw it, per WP:NPA. I ask you again to withdraw your WP:AGF violations, quoted above.

Dame Etna (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Waste my time", code word for "I'll take the discussions I WANT to take". Who would become as defensive as you have unless they had a POV agenda to push in the article? Give it a rest, DE, give it a rest. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 22:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

An admin points out problematic editing to you and you remove it as "harassment"..? Without taking care of the issue, too. Are you really a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard? Bishonen | talk 11:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry, Bishonen. Won't happen again. Didn't I take care, for now? I agreed to stop the edits until I found the source.EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 11:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, but where did you agree to stop the edits? A note on the talkpage to that effect might be helpful, considering that the other editor took the trouble to write a whole elaborate thing. Agreeing inside your head isn't the same thing. Also I think it was a question of WP:UNDUE at least as much as of sourcing. But I'm done here — I understand that you want to do the right thing. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Social Democrats, USA

My apologies if you thought that I shouldn't have intervened. Since we both agreed that it was getting out of hand, I went ahead and failed the discussion. Any further discussion can be at WP:ANI, but it would be better for both of them if they would avoid ANI, because it could backfire and get them both blocked or topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all you that I was annoyed at, rather it's frustrating to take on a case just to have user/s scoff at my moderating efforts and then attack me personally. I brought up political opinions because I believed reasonably that they might have had a role in how the article was edited. I admit that I probably went about it wrong in the way I brought it up. I'm sorry this DRN discussion failed, I had much higher hopes for the prospect thereof. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 23:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just accused Bishonen of harassment and here you are accusing me of attacking you personally. Such accusations without any evidence violate WP:NPA.

Please remove them.

Dame Etna (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hang in there EE. You're a superb moderator and any rational person would admire your patience (that includes your patience with me when I had to step away, btw). Any time you can re-open the thread, I'll be there. GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks for helping at DRN! Overall your performance on this recent case was fine. Like anything else DRN is a learning experience. I think you should continue. My only recommendation would be to look at the talk page before you take the case and see if the editors are disagreeing in a civil manner. If the talk page discussion is heated and out of control then leave that case for someone else. Also cases with only two participants are the easiest to handle. So stick with the simple ones until you have more experience. Also focus on moderating rather than giving your opinion. In my experience just keeping the discussion from straying into side topics is all that is needed to be successful. Often the participants can find a resolution if the discussion defined and kept on track. Lastly let me or other experience DRN volunteers know if you need help and we'll support you as you finish the case. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 16:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socialism

I noticed your recent edits on the article on how the label "socialist" is used by the right-wingers in the United States. I edited the section to include links to more relevant articles, however there are problems with the sourcing you provided. I hope you can revisit the article and add more sources. Specifically the problems are the following:

"In recent times, particularly since the Presidency of George W. Bush, the political right in the United States has inaccurately termed liberal or other left of center policies and causes as socialist." Currently there is no source for this statement. Could you provide sources for this equation of socialism and liberalism? Particularly sources which can trace this misuse of the term to specific texts and statements.
"It is well noted by the media that American conservatives largely believe President Barack Obama to be a socialist." Currently you have provided a source for only one conservative holding this belief, Sarah Palin. Could you provide sources that others share this belief? Personally, it is far from the first time I hear it, but I am not certain how widespread this fringe theory is. A google search for the terms "Obama Socialist" finds 22,500,000 results, but I am not certain if there are any pages worth on quoting on the subject. We have a Category:Conspiracy theories regarding Barack Obama which does not include a page on the Obama-Socialism connection.
"This was a prominent talking point in the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008". Yet the article on the subject makes no use of the term socialism? How prominent was this talking point?
"Particularly by Sarah Palin." The source you provided is a Palin statement from 2012, not 2008. Had she actually stated her belief on the theory back in 2008.
"At the present time, the American political right continues to associate liberal policies and politicians with socialism", There is no source supporting the statement.

I hope I am not bothering you, I would just like to see the article improved. Dimadick (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed at DRN

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Donald Trump, you may be blocked from editing. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ooohh, I'm sorry. It will never happen again. *snicker* EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 23:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you introduce jokes into articles. BilCat (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What jokes? EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 07:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, EnglishEfternamn. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello EnglishEfternamn! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 22:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:RenandStimpyVeediotsScreen.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RenandStimpyVeediotsScreen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

You seem to be welcoming new users who have not made any edits. Robotic-like welcoming of new users is something the community has rejected so often that it has an entry at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. For whatever reason, dozens if not hundreds of accounts are created each day that never make a single edit, so auto-welcoming them doesn’t do anything except create a page that nobody will read.

And if there was something you were trying to say with this edit on my talk page I’m afraid I don’t see it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was done in good faith and out of assumption of good faith. But as I was not aware that it was frowned upon, while, I'll take a look at the link and familiarize myself with it. Yes, I have noticed that new usernames often get no further activity. Probably a spam effort. Apologize, will take a look. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 20:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

- TNT^❤ 18:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have also disabled your ability to email users due to the egregious, confirmed abuse which has been reported to us. - TNT^❤ 20:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@There'sNoTime:

I'm ignoring most of the inane bs you're emailing me through your sock accounts, but I'd like to publicly post at least one of the emails you sent:

>I told you that I'm not letting up. You could have gone about this differently. Could have stopped and asked "Hey, are you behind this? If you are, please stop."...now you, Beetlebrox, and Duncan are on my SHIT LIST.

You've clearly proven that being asked to stop harassing multiple members of our community, given how long you've been doing it using your many many socks, would be pointless. - TNT^❤ 06:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that despite being here for a long time and also being a member of the "Ten Year Club" (not the TYC isn't reserved only for people that the community thinks are more valuable to the project), also having lent very valuable contribs as my history will demonstrate, I myself was never considered a part of this "community". The fact that when you look back to 2006, I was treated with disdain by all but just a couple of users for proposing changes to articles that ended up taking place anyhow. I was treated with contempt by users, some of which aren't even around anymore and got into hot water on this site not long after a now de-sysopped user forced *me* off. I was never thanked other than by a couple of users for locating new sources, for re-writing areas that needed to be re-written, for moderating disputes at DRN, for adding new images that fell under free or fair use, never given any tokens of 'wiki appreciation', the only times anyone in the community, who SEE me on here all the time, bothered to stop by my talk page was when they had some sort of problem with me. I have been told my edits (the ones on here, the constructive ones) are 'garbage'. I am battling Addison's disease, I could just drop dead at any moment and this is the one outlet that allows me to feel like I've got some intellectual participation going on. I MOMENTARILY expressed disappointment that Beeblebrox had played such a vindictive role in getting a good administrator and bureaucrat shut down, in the form of a "=(" edit, nothing more, and then the next day, I get slapped down with a CU block in which it's not even explained to me whose sock I am alleged to be part of. Sure, I admit it, I sock...I sincerely do apologize. But just try to thinnk about how you'd feel if you were myself. Think about how it would feel to want to be part of what's ostensibly an intellectual outlet and for many years being told that you have no place in it and that your only rights are to leave. It's not nice, it's not fun. I've given money to the Wikimedia foundation, I'm a dedicated lifelong learner, yet I get told I'm part of a trash bin here. It's not nice, it really is not nice. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 18:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of the above worth reading is "Sure, I admit it, I sock" - what you've put in emails and talk page messages to the editors you've been abusing is not 'momentary disappointment'. Please list the accounts you've used to sock - TNT^❤ 18:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'll start you off with some of your more recent ones:

DuncanCanStickIt, Confirmed to you
CantStopWikimaticImmunity, Confirmed to you
FilbertWilbert, Confirmed to you

I could go on, and you know I could, but we'd run out of room, and I want you to start listing accounts. Don't play the pity card, you've been doing this for years. - TNT^❤ 18:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Help out a community I'm not allowed to be a part of?EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 18:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damn right you're not going to be allowed to "be a part of" this community. - TNT^❤ 18:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

then no nothing gets listed and I do not relent. There's nothing you can do to keep me off this site you guys can however decide if I can be here as a legitimate editor or a disrupter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnglishEfternamn (talk • contribs)

Keep it up, Trust and Safety will look into it. - TNT^❤ 19:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I want you to list them", and why would I do that?EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 19:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning I'm going to give you about misuse of your talk page, next time I'll revoke access - TNT^❤ 19:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

about what? Why would I "list" my alleged "socks"?EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 19:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t have to. It is something people in your position (caught with massive sock farm) sometimes do as a show of good faith. You are not the first person I’ve seen at this crossroad. Wikipedians can very forgiving, in fact frankly I’ve been shocked at the level of second chances people get here if they’ve been around for a while, as you have.

So, you can let off with the harassment and bad-faith behavior and go for an WP:OFFER unblock at some point in the future, or you can be a miserable troll whose main activity here is getting blocked left and right for trolling. I don’t see the fun in that but apparently some people do. Contrary to what you seem to be indicating this is your choice to make and yours alone. If you care about the project, even if you don’t care for the community who created and maintains it, the choice should be easy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Well... I'm sorry. Really am, what I did wasn't very nice and it certainly will not happen again.EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 22:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so...if I comply, can I make my case any better? Look at my contribs. Tell me I'm not capable of doing great things for this project.EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 06:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you're still actively socking (WikiHate,

Confirmed to you), you're obviously not being sincere in saying it certainly will not happen again. You're also site banned per WP:3X, so any unban would require community discussion. - TNT^❤ 10:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On which venue would a community discussion commence? This talk page? WP:ANI, I'm just curious. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 15:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is... while I know my actions are wrong, I don't think anybody can say with a straight face that I've never helped this encyclopedia. A cursory review of my contributions will show people that I do make quality edits. My user logo, that's a picture of one of my many personal, classic encyclopedias. That's why I'm here, not because of the community, because of the encyclopedia itself and the population at large, to be a part of advancing the next step of the information age. I'm not just some vandal who has *only* vandalized things. If I could convince the community to allow me to return, I'd be willing to undergo the strictest of err, they call it a "probationary" editing period. Contrary to what you may think, I do love this project and I don't resent "the community who maintains it", as I, like it or not, have been part of maintaining this project. Again, see my contributions over more than twelve years. One should see the good with the bad. Blocks and bans are preventative, not punitive. What would need to be done to illustrate only my good side will be present here from here on?EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 16:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh hello? All put to an end so to speak. Looking to make amends and reintegrate?EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 02:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to post a formal unblock request using the process described in the block template. A previously uninvolved administrator will review your request. However, given the amount of socking and the level of really awful behavior you displayed I doubt it would be accepted. The standard offer is probably your best bet at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was a study on disruption prevention on WP and my findings have demonstrated that the project works very very well. EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 06:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I don't feel that I'm 'banned' is a fair measure. There was no public discussion on why I was banned, especially considering it's generally required "in the event the contributor has made significant good faith edits". It still strikes me as strange timing, BBrox, that the very moment I benignly expressed my disagreement with the Andrevan outcome, I get CU'ed. It'd be nice to know what evidence there was that led to this decision. Yes, I admitted to it, yet it was wrong, but I hadn't done so yet at the time and I know the EE IP is not linked with my socks because I always made sure my socks were used on other IP's. Somebody was fishing, but I'd really think it'd be fair if I could know why.EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 19:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my final response as this conversation is going nowhere. You are banned per WP:3X, no community discussion is required (the section you out-of-context quoted actually refers to a notification to the community that you have been banned if you had made substantial good faith contributions - you've not. So I didn't.). One of your socks made some edits, which was reported and checked (as allowed per policy). The findings were discussed and multiple checkusers agreed with my findings. There was no "fishing". - TNT ^💖 19:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are de facto banned per WP:3X. The only way to get unbanned in this circumstance, is by community discussion - which you may request via WP:UTRS. I am revoking your access to edit this page until such time as you are ready to initiate a community discussion with a realistic chance of succeeding. SQL ^{Query me!} 19:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:EfternamnLogo2.jpg

The file File:EfternamnLogo2.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

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 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. Willy1018 (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:SMAllstarspic.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SMAllstarspic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Charlotte York Goldenblatt

The article Charlotte York Goldenblatt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you. PS. No objection to redirecting this to List of Sex and the City characters, anyone can be bold, remove the prod, and add a redirect.

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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Charlotte York Goldenblatt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charlotte York Goldenblatt 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/Charlotte York Goldenblatt 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.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]