User talk:Eracekat
|
Speedy deletion nomination of Frank Levinson
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Frank Levinson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Scopecreep (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The article Friedrich simmel has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Biglulu (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I have added external sources and removed tags accordingly. Did not remove the non notable tag, although I believe this person is notable and should be on wikipedia. What should I do? Remove it too?
Eracekat (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 23:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Biglulu (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
The article Deep cement mixing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- An essay which does not describe the technique well enough to determine any notability for the underlying technique. Fails WP:GNG
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 12:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I politely asked you to take your proposed changes to the talk page. Why didn't you? Could you do it now please? HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
R&I notice
[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
ANI notification
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
May 2014
[edit]I noticed this. At the moment you are one step away from a block. Could you step back from this without making action necessary? That would be my preference. --John (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've seen your response at the SPI, which seems reasonable although I of course have no way of knowing. We do have a handful of editors who can check your IP against that of BeauPhenomene. I want to clarify the difference between 'ban' and 'blocked'. When an editor is blocked by an Administrator suchas myself, the software prevents them from editing. Bans, which can be imposed in a variety of ways (see WP:Banning policy) are different - banned editors may be banned from certain topics, from interacting with other editors, etc. Except in circumstances where they are already blocked, they can still edit and are technically able to break their ban - which usually leads to them being blocked. The article has a long history of sock puppets and I still think it likely that BeauPhenomene is someone's sock, even if not yours. Any questions, just ask on my talk page. My advice is the same as John's - we are both experienced editors and Administrators and you don't have consensus - see WP:CONSENSUS. I will say more or less again that there is a position that minorities are not disadvantaged, but that is held almost exclusively by people of a conservative to far right persuasion, including of course Thomas Sowell. In an article about the disadvantage of minorities we might mention Sowell's opinion, stating that it his his opinion, but I don't think it can be used in the R&i article (if you want to reply to me about that use the R&i talk page). Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)