User talk:Green Squares

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Green Squares, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Scarpy (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rape of Europa

Hi. This is not a very helpful link. Please take a look at this guideline. The problem with it is (a) it can be construed as being used for advertising and (b) since it's a drama, it relies on the writer's interpretation of events, and thus not very encyclopedic in purpose. You are welcome to seek a third opinion, but my experience here tells me that these links are not usually kept. --Rodhull andemu 14:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Herrenvolk

An article that you have been involved in editing, Herrenvolk, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herrenvolk. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --Latebird (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undid changes to Earnings quality

Hi Green Squares! I undid your changes to the article Earnings quality because the subject is clearly not a Financial ratio. A financial ratios is a "ratio of selected values on an enterprise's financial statements", but earnings quality has a much broader definition than that. Feel free to discuss more at the article's discussion page if you wish. Cheers! :)-Samuel Tan 00:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, please see Talk:Earnings quality about the reasons why I reverted some of your edits. Cheers, Samuel Tan 11:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. I really was not aiming for it when I wrote the article. Nice surprise. Dark hyena (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dog fight videos

FYI - it doesn't matter where the servers are, it was illegal to show those videos in the United States. Like child pornogrpahy, it doesn't matter where the pornogrpahy originated, it is illegal to view or possess it in the US. However, last week, the Supreme Court overturned that law about animal fighting claiming that everyone has a first amendment right to see the videos. Nonetheless, they are still not appropriate as an external link on Wiki. Bob98133 (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of Canadian Income Tax Law

Hi. I tagged this article as promotional in nature and recommended its immediate deletion. Lines like this troubled me:

"There is a reason for everything, and we always try to explain what that reason is."
"We hope as well that it will be useful to courts, especially when they have to deal with fundamental issues, and we have been delighted that it has been cited in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada."
"We have tried to avoid the complex abstractions with which the Income Tax Act is replete. Our language is as simple, concrete and non-technical as our capability and the nature of the subject permitted."

It seems you're either associated with the book yourself -- a clear conflict of interest -- or else you've copied this from somewhere -- a copyright violation. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been deleted. If you'd like to work on articles locally, you may wish to place them in your user sandbox User:Green Squares/Sandbox to work on it there, but at the moment the page seems to be completely promotional in nature and fails to establish notability regarding the book in question. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (books) for specific guidelines regarding books. In addition, by being the author as you've claimed on the page, you have an inherent conflict of interest regarding the status of the article, which would make it extremely difficult to abide by our neutral point of view policy (which is a requirement of all editors).

If you'd like to have the article text sent to you, let me know. Kylu (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Crossposted from user talk:Kylu

I posted Hangon and you Speedy deleted anyway, a clear violation of the rules. Please post the Appeal link on my talk page, so we can have the article placed back and you can post an +afd and you can try to build a consensus. Remember, book burning was done by Nazi's, it is against the principles of Wikipedia to delete a valid article without first building a consensus. 01:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Squares (talk • contribs)

Reverted your removal just now. Check out the actual text of {{hangon}} by the way:

The speedy deletion of this page is contested. The person placing this notice intends to dispute the speedy deletion of this article on this page's talk page, and requests that this page not be deleted in the meantime. Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon. This template should not be removed from a page still marked with a speedy deletion template.

See the "this request is not binding" bit? Yep.

You haven't yet mentioned why you think the book is notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion (does it meet the book notability requirements? Not from what I've seen...) nor why you don't possess a conflict of interest in posting information on a book you claim to have written. As it was written at the time of deletion, it was a pure ad for the book written in Author POV.

If you disagree with the opinions of myself and the tagging user, please feel free to request community input at deletion review. I'll copy this to your talkpage as well.

Oh, and, really, don't compare people to Nazis simply because you can't have your ad on the encyclopedia. Bad form. Kylu (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Deletion Review case was closed. You may wish to review the discussion (click "show" on that page) to help improve future editing efforts. Thanks. Kylu (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Ottawa Humane Society

A tag has been placed on Ottawa Humane Society, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page 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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ShootinPutin109 01:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottawa Humane Society page

I'm attempting to provide accurate information in the entry and remove irrelevant links and accurate information on the OHS, which is not currently available in your article. TaraJottawahumane (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Help

{{adminhelp}}

Hello, would you please advise where the policy is on an employee of an organization editing the article related to that organization? I assume it is not allowed at Wikipedia as it would not be NPOV. TaraJottawahumane above is an employee of the Ottawa Humane Society and is editing the said article. Thank you. Green Squares (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Green Squares, regarding your question, possibly WP:COI.--PhilKnight (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Humane Society

After reviewing the articles history, it appears as if you are trying to assert ownership of it. I'd ask that you refrain from doing so. Also, please read our conflict of interest pages (WP:COI) and note that being related to the subject of an article does not disqualify you from editing that article; it does however advise users in that situation to take extra caution when editing, primarily to maintain a neutral point of view. Rather than just reverting changes (which appear to be acceptable), why don't you try and help the user? Don't be bitey. That is what is considered bad form. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. Read WP:COI as I suggested the first time. It doesn't say you cannot edit pages, it says to take caution when doing so. Of course, COI editing is discouraged, but not disallowed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, this accusation of "vandalism" was uncalled for. Perhaps you need to review this as well. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OHS just wants accurate information portrayed in the entry. We would rather have no article at all rather than one that is flawed. I'm unclear as to why GreenSquares is being so hostile, but I assume it is related to the similarly hostile e-mails he has sent to the OHS. This surely is a non-neutral POV. It's frustrating that his implied ownership of the site is resulting in any external edits being reversed almost immediately. TaraJottawahumane (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Help iWar

Can an administrator please move the article from IWar to iWar. The article IWar was already created as a #Redirect, so I could not create the correct title for the newly written article iWar. Thank you Green Squares (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the {{lowercase}} template, which seems to do the job. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Green, I saw your comment about editing again and am still puzzled. I don't change English spelling into American and wasn't aware that there was 'Canadian spelling'. Keith-264 (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

volumNe - Ah! Now I understand. I thought it was a typo! Apologies. Keith-264 (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Nintendo DS chess games

I have nominated List of Nintendo DS chess games, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nintendo DS chess games. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Marlith (Talk) 17:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian spelling

Sorry, I speak 3 romance languages and none of them use that spelling. I didn't realize Canadian English (?) had such a feature. I did restore the defaultsort, which was the main reason for my editing the article. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it doesn't appear in the OED...but then what do those limeys know eh? :) Her Pegship (tis herself) 03:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Titles in the Books on Hitler Page

OK, why titles in Dutch and Icelandic, and not any of the hundred other languages with books on Hitler? How likely is it that an English-speaking reading will be interested? German, well, that makes sense, given the significant literature. I see no reason, however, to privilege Dutch and Icelandic.... Bytwerk (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But my question is still of what use will Dutch and Icelandic books be to the English-speaking reader? Wikipedia prefers English-language sources (for the English version, anyway). Should we add Bulgarian, Japanese, and Estonian books as well? The page could rapidly expand to interminable length. I'm not disagreeing that it makes sense to have a foreign language section, and I agree the German titles may be useful. But I didn't remove the foreign language heading. I removed those for Dutch and Icelandic. So again, what do books in Dutch and Icelandic do to strengthen the article? Bytwerk (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still asking the question: Why Icelandic and Dutch? Why not also add Bulgarian, Urdo, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.? The point I am making is that it does no reader of the article any benefit to include obscure languages. Bytwerk (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others may add the foreign language titles, but I'm asking why you think it is necessary to revert, say, Icelandic, just because someone else added it. What possible value does it add for the English-speaking reader? Bytwerk (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anderssen's grave

Another cemetary, see here: [1]. --DaQuirin (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anderssen's grave is in Wroclaw (of course). There are obviously two cemetaries with an identical Polish name. The Wroclaw one is the former Friedhof (cemetary) Oswitz, renamed after the war. --DaQuirin (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Arpad Elo

We appreciate your contributions to the article Arpad Elo, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, I removed your addition.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the "Help Desk". You can also leave a message on my talk page.Jon513 (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Adolf Hitler books"

Hi. Thanks for your message informing me of your reversion. However, how can the name "List of Adolf Hitler books" be correct? "Adolf Hitler" is a (proper) noun, not an adjective. If you (or you think other people) aren't happy with "List of books by and about Adolf Hitler", how about "List of books relating to Adolf Hitler" or "List of Adolf Hitler-related books"..? (I'm not too keen on the latter, though).
I was also about to rename "List of Adolf Hitler speeches" to "List of speeches given by Adolf Hitler". Would that also prompt a reversion?
Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've posted queries on both articles' talkpages. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoD5

I did not vandalize, the info you added is inappropriate for WP under WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. Lists of trivial features are never accepted into articles (this includes lists of weapons, achievements, and such things as Call of Duty multiplayer perks), and I was perfectly within the guidelines to revert you. -- Comandante {Talk} 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't leave the info in, it's specifically against the guidelines. If I hadn't reverted you, someone else would have for the same reasons. As far as I'm concerned, to have the info included, the burden would be on you to explain why we should go against WP:GAMECRUFT in this one article above all others. If you want to keep your info in, make your argument on the article's talk page, but until consensus agrees with, the info has to stay out. We can't assume a consensus in your favor just because you would like to see the info included. -- Comandante {Talk} 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had looked at my edit on the talk page, you would have noticed that I did not remove your list (although it has no business being there, the list itself has no bearing on whether or not is should be included in the article). All I did was condense the list into a collapsible format so that it doesn't take up so much space. Aside from that, you did not have any reason to remove my comment there. Your reverting both things, however, is a mistake that can be overlooked; just make sure that next time you examine what you revert more closely. -- Comandante {Talk} 02:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Call of Duty: World at War

I have the right to delete information which is not valid. Talk page is not a forum and please stop entering game guide information. Read the WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT or i can report you for disobeying the guidelines.--SkyWalker (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

video games

do u have cod4 --DCsniper207 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

im looking for people to add on ps3 and play cod4 with them--DCsniper207 (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Battle of Givenchy

In general, a look at any war memorial in a town that sent men to battalions in the 1st division of the Canadian Corps will list 'Givenchy' among the battle sites/honours.

However, references to the battle can be found on the following sites: CEF Research, Veteran's Affairs Canada, The Long, Long Trail to name a few... I've been meaning to post up a wiki page on 2nd Givenchy, but haven't found time to get round to it... near future I hope. Givenchy is ever remembered as the battle in which Canadian soldiers gave up on the Ross Rifle and began taking Lee Enfields off of their dead and wounded British comrades.

I hope that settles things - Whisky Whiskymack(talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar, GS! Save Fort Madison Billwhittaker (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi post it on your user page and be proud, nice work ! Green Squares (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leptotyphlops carlae

Per Wikipedia:MOS#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms, a capital initial letter is necessary for the genus. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator

{{adminhelp}} Hello, at the article Eunectes murinus an editor named User:Jwinius keeps moving the "also known as" from the first sentence, and floats it over the article. Would you please intervene. I believe the AKA should be in the first sentence, not floating on the top, that is where the "disambiguation" should go. Thank you. Green Squares (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but admin intervention is not needed in this case. If you have a conflict with this editor, please try to talk to them. If this fails, please pursue dispute resolution. Regards So Why 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Green Squares, I noticed you had changed the format of this article again and came here to explain. I thought my edit summary would explain things, but I guess not. Not long after I started editing Wikipedia's articles on snakes, I noticed that many species had many common names, but that Wikipedia did not have a satisfactory method for dealing with them systematically. So, I came up with this format, which I've applied to about 500 snake articles now. Please read this recent discussion. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

typically we put the common names in the first sentence of the article after "also known as" not on top, which is where the disambiguations go. Green Squares (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm well aware of that. Please read the link I gave you. (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hk417.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Hk417.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chess sets

Regrettably, I've had to delete the articles you submitted today about chess sets, because you gave no indication of any type of notability whatsoever. If you wish to re-create the articles, I recommend that you include some content about why they matter. DS (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the content of the four articles:

"'The Selenus chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess."
"The French Regence chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess."
"The St. George chess set is composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess.", and
"The 'Barleycorn chess set s composed of a particular type of chess pieces used to play the game of chess."

There is no content here. If these are actually notable, if they've genuinely been around for centuries, then you should say so from the very first edit. You should explain why they matter. You did not do that. But you can do it now. DS (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, there is content and you also deleted the citations to each article and other information in the articles. These are stub +tag articles and there is room for them to ""Keep and Expand"", which is all that is required for an article at Wikipedia. Green Squares (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator

{{adminhelp}} Please put back the articles User:DragonflySixtyseven deleted. If he wants them deleted he can request an AFD like everyone else. The articles are: Selenus chess set, Barleycorn chess set, St. George chess set and French Regence chess set.

Thank you Green Squares (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please speak to him first, or request a deletion review. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the full content of your articles. There were no citations, only links to photos. Now you can expand them in your userspace before moving them out into mainspace. DS (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want WP:DRV if you want community review of an admins deletion. Chillum 01:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Please avoid personal attacks such as "over zealous admin dick named User:DragonflySixtyseven"; such incivility will not be tolerated. Thank you. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is Wikipedia any different than real life? For example, you wouldn't walk up to a stranger in the street and say "You're a dick", would you? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but it's still considered uncivil to specifically address someone by calling them a dick. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Two wrongs don't make a right" –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

though I would never use the word "dick" myself in this context, I think it just might apply to admins who delete incomplete articles 5 minutes after they've been started. I would have used the entirely appropriate word "overzealous" and, in fact, I think I will go back to the Deletion review and add it to my comment. But GS, calling someone a "dick" does tend to make them angry and doesn't help things along--as you can see at the discussion there. DGG (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chess set articles

I support having the articles about the chess sets, if they can be expanded. However, please be civil to the admin WP:civil. Bubba73 (talk), 02:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it as a third party, I think your general tone was angry and uncivil, e.g "Stop lying". Bubba73 (talk), 15:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a supporter of undeleting these articles for process reasons, I do think you are hurting your cause by being uncivil. Take it down a few notches and things will more likely go your way. From a process viewpoint you are in the right, but people hate to reward uncivil behavior around here, so you might lose the issue on that basis alone. It likely shouldn't be that way, but there you are. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen enough people around here with a similar attitude get banned from the site. I'd urge you to back off a bit. Obviously up to you. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GS, Thank you for your invitation. My view is the same as that of Bubba73. Just calm down and put your obvious energy and intelligence into expanding the articles. Writtenright (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Writtenright[reply]

User warning

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reticulate python edits

Hi, I undid your edits to reticulated python because the snake involved in the incident you describe was not this species. Retics do not live in africa, and in fact the only large python in africa is Python sebae, the African rock python. The attack is already noted in that species' page. Mokele (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 H1N1 flu outbreak

Thank you for all your hard work. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your comment on my talk page

I have responded to you with important information relevant to your continued editing of Wikipedia, at [2]. —Centrx→talk • 01:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 2009 swine flu outbreak in the United States, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Redundant, already covered in article Swine Influenza.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Portia327 (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In good faith, I alerted the admins to what I thought was redundant article. The comment above that is attributed to me is an automatic template generated when I sent that alert, not written by me. I feel your comment on my Talk page, "It doesn't look like your foolish attempt to delete the article went very far...have fun! Green Squares (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)" is unhelpful and unnecessary. I'm trying to keep Wiki as accurate and concise as possible, just like you and every other editor. My alert was nothing personal and I ask that you reconsider your response. Portia327 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting external links section

Could you explain your motivation for splitting the external links section on 2009 Swine flu outbreak in Canada? It creates an entry in the table of contents for no reason, and for such a small number of external links, seems entirely unnecessary. –xeno ^talk 23:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not necessarily "for Canadians" it is about an event in Canada. Splitting the external links section gives undue weight to Canadian external links, and is also unnecessary because it makes extra room on the table of contents when there are only 10 links in total. –xeno ^talk 13:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for outside opinion here: Wikipedia talk:External links#Question on subheaders in the External links section. –xeno ^talk 14:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern tarantula

Would you please stop wholesale reversion of edits to the Eastern tarantula article? If you want the second word in a spider's name lowercased, then go ahead by all means, but you also keep wiping out multiple corrections to units of measurement--e.g., "six hours" instead of "six-hours" and 3.28 feet for a meter instead of the incorrect "three-feet". JiveTalkinChoirBoy (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help

I advised the new editor JiveTalkinChoirBoy to stop reverting his talk page as it is against Wikipedia rules. Would you please advise him to stop doing that, thank you. Green Squares (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. He can remove your messages from his talk page, and it should be taken as an indication that he has read them. Please read Wikipedia:USERTALK#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. --Step hen 12:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've always been able to remove warnings from your talk page, except if you are blocked or accused of serious issues such as sockpuppetry. Wikipedia:User page#NOT gives a list of what is unacceptable. --Step hen 12:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unmasked: two confidential interviews with Hitler in 1931

Hi, in your edit of the above page you have replaced 'Notes and Sources' with 'References'. I have changed it back to 'Notes and Sources' as they are notes and sources and there is already a references section. Also you changed 'reflist' to 'reflist|3. What benefits do you envisage to that change? Cheers --Davidbeare (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your note pointing me to ([3] 00:41, 30 May 2009) That's what, I thought, reflist|3 is not recommended. I'm a novice so I don't know whether there is a reason you want to use reflist|3 if it is not recommended. If there isn't one shall we just revert it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbeare (talk • contribs)

Gratius Falsius

"Gratius Falsius" is a well known in-joke amongst classicists (his name is latin for "gratuitous hoax"). If he's "an ancient Roman author and historian writing in the year 8 AD", surely there'd be some mention of this author on the internet aside from this travesty of broken English you've dug up: "Fleig stated that Roman author Gratius Falsius from the year 8 A.D. written of big exhibition fights in the Roman amphitheatre between the pugnaces from Epirus and the pugnaces from Brittain and it turn out that these wide mouth dogs from Brittain were far superior to the Greek Molossus." I don't know if this site is the perpetrator or a victim of this hoax, but all roads seem to lead to the mysterious "Fleig" (also cited on the Wiki page as the author of "Fighting Dog Breeds"). Perhaps this man - writing a book about dogs, not about Roman historians, after all - naively fell for a classicist's joke while researching whether any Roman historians had written about the pugnaces.--Yolgnu (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Help

{{adminhelp}}

Hello Admin, for the article Pugnaces Britanniae two editors keep deleting cited information. I tried to work constructively with them on the article talk page, but they will not. Can you intervene and put the cited information back. Thank you. Green Squares (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am an Administrator and have replied on the article's talk page. Please drop this now as the book clearly does not meet our criteria at WP:RS, which you might want to read. I will add that I am simply advising you and would say the same thing if I weren't an Administrator, and that there are no grounds here for an Administrator to actually intervene. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Please accept this headgear as a token of respect and appreciation for your doughty defence of our content. Illegitimi non carborundum — Colonel Warden (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gratius Falsius etc.

I hope I am not going to waste more time with this topic. A dispute on antique history between a mathematician and an MBA makes no sense when there are actual experts around. I have notified the relevant project at WT:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Eyes needed: "Gratius Falsius" and the "Procurator Cynegii" in Roman Britain and will try to stay away from the topic and simply wonder how long it will take for you to be blocked. In the meantime, continue to have fun rewriting history according to dog breeders. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Dieter Fleig

I have nominated Dieter Fleig, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieter Fleig. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Procurator Cynegii. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring at Pugnaces Britanniae

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please note that you are already up against the limit. Please discuss this on the talk page instead of simply returning the article to "your" version. Blueboar (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Canis pugnaces, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You were aware that other editors were interested in and discussing the article, and chose to change the spelling of the title without discussion and without even being sure if you were correct. Dougweller (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking accusation

You mean hounding, and if you read WP:Hound you will find it says "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." I assure you that I am not hounding you and advise you to WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

You are clearly editing against consensus (besides being wrong) at Canes pugnaces‎. I don't know why you are doing this, but if you read the talk page it's clear that you are in a minority and your arguments don't hold water. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous accounts

Have you had any previous accounts? Hipocrite (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, have you? Green Squares (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SirIsaacBrock. Thank you.

You have already admitted it, but I think it should be logged properly. I have also added three of your earlier incarnations that had not been identified before. --Hans Adler 02:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Hello, Green Squares. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for ban evasion of SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SirIsaacBrock and currend WP:ANI thread. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 11:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

{{unblock|Hi, I am a sock puppet, I agree. My account was blocked several years ago. I am a good editor that has written hundreds if not a thousand articles and I have started and sorted many categories. I would ask that based on my strong record that I be reinstated at Wikipedia. Thank you. Green Squares (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

I've disabled your unblock request, as a single admin does not have the authority to overturn a community ban. It may be best for you to contact the Arbitration Committee by email if you wish to contest the block. --auburnpilot talk 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am unable to edit on Wikipedia, so you will have to do it. Thanks. Green Squares (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Green Squares (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I am a sock puppet, I agree. My account was blocked several years ago. I am a good editor that has written hundreds if not a thousand articles and I have started and sorted many categories. I would ask that based on my strong record that I be reinstated at Wikipedia. Thank you. Green Squares (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A single admin does not have the authority to overturn a community ban. It may be best for you to contact the Arbitration Committee by email if you wish to contest the block. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I don't see evidence of a community ban, and I could wish that blocking and reviewing admins did a more substantial review of the circumstances before taking action. Sandstein clearly read the SPI case, where he would have noted the comments of a few people (myself included) noting that immediately blocking Green Squares based on his admission might not be the best course of action. Accordingly, an explanation of why he disagrees (and a simple recommendation to Green Squares on how to move forward) was warranted. SirIsaacBrock was blocked nearly three years ago for socking. No sock of his has been blocked (and documented as such) in more than a year, and it appears that for sometime the only reason socks were being blocked is because they had been identified as SirIsaacBrock. I'm not saying he obviously deserves to return, but I suggested on the SPI case that folks discuss the possibility of mentorship and supervised editing... Reflexive blocking for a 3 year old transgression isn't necessarily in our interests. Nathan^T 22:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you find an admin to "mentor" this individual? Please don't volunteer others for work you can't do. Also, please be sure that the "mentorship" isn't an "enabling." Any further BLP violations, misrepresentation of sources or creation of articles that lack encyclopedic tone should result in a return to indef. Finally, I know of other socks, since discarded. A condition of any unblock/unban should be a full and true accounting of all sock accounts. Hipocrite (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I haven't seen evidence of misrepresenting sources or BLP violations, and I don't think people are typically blocked for not writing in an encyclopedic tone (if that could be defined). Nonetheless, as a long-blocked editor who has socked in the past, mentorship/supervised editing would still make sense. A willing volunteer usually steps up if mentorship is supported as an alternative to an indefinite block. I've proposed a number of things where the work isn't ultimately done by me; just because I can't do something myself doesn't mean a good idea might find a person to follow through. Nathan^T 23:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about BLP violations, although his creation of the article Dieter Fleig (Through research supported with citations, he tells the whole truth about the ancient breeds as the progenitors of their modern era's counterparts [...]. [4]), which he thought was a BLP, probably came close. [5] If I wrote dog books and plagiarised citations of classical authors from earlier dog books by others, I wouldn't want Wikipedia to draw attention to the fact in this way.

As this example demonstrates (keeping in mind that the user is by no standards a newbie), the main problem with this editor is one that JzG addressed openly when he temporarily blocked one of his socks. [6] The background to that block can be found at User talk:EnviroGranny#Here comes the heavy mob and [7]. Two years later, the ownership attitude is still the same. And the problem mentioned by JzG cannot be solved by anything Wikipedia can do. It became evident in such actions as presenting passages containing "canes, pugnaces" as evidence that the article canes pugnaces must not be turned into a redirect, and also in the brilliant surprise move [8]. (The article itself explained that canis pugnax is singular and canes pugnaces is plural. He did the move without any warning, during an argument with several editors from WP:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. This was based on a misspelling on a single website.) Hans Adler 23:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan, I'd be nice if you didn't assume complete incompetence on the part of the admins reviewing this request. I assure you, I thoroughly read through the situation, reviewed the sock report, checked the recentness of the sockpuppets, and only then made the judgment that the block was not suitable for review by a single admin. Maybe you failed to see the report on ANI before you commented here, but I didn't. The intention to block was announced in a very public forum and was not met with opposition. --auburnpilot talk 00:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you of complete incompetence, I wasn't and I don't believe you are at all incompetent. I have read (and commented at) the thread at AN/I, which has had relatively little participation and that little made primarily by folks opposed to GS in a content dispute. You and Julian both cited a community ban as the reason for declining/disabling the unblock, but I don't find any evidence of a community ban. The block message didn't address any of the background or give any information outside the template on how to achieve an unblock, and the declines seemed to me to take on faith comments made at AN/I that lacked direct evidence and described events open to interpretation. So, my comment was that I'd wish blocking and declining admins made a more substantial review; perhaps what I should have said is that I would like to read about the substance of that review, instead of assuming it was done despite what struck me as a misconception of events.

In any event, there is a limit to the volume of advocacy I'm willing to do for an editor whose conduct I'm not able to vouch for; Green Squares, I'd advise you to take up the instructions of others and review WP:Standard offer, WP:REHAB, and contact the arbitration committee (specifically the ban appeal subcommittee) by e-mail (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org I believe) if you'd like to be unblocked and no administrator steps forward to do so. Nathan^T 00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting Arbcom

Hello, you can e-mail Arbcom to request they review your ban if you're unable to edit. Their e-mail address can be found here: [9] - <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban of SirIsaacBrock

If you look at his userpage SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs) it says he is banned. He's on our list of banned users [10]. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a terminological problem with indefinitely blocked, banned and community banned, with no clear demarcations between them. SirIsaacBrock is technically community banned per the wording of WP:BAN#Community ban, items 2 and 3 (listed on WP:BANNED since July 2006 [11]). He was not banned per item 1, and I believe the term "community ban" is often used as referring specifically to that.

It's clear that a community ban as in item 2 or 3 can be reversed by a single admin unblocking. It's not at all clear to me how long that is possible, and I guess the community is divided between those who say a ban that did not come about through a formal banning discussion can always be undone by a simple unblock, and those who say such an unblock would have to happen within days after the relevant AN or ANI discussion.

I have added information about number of blocks/unblocks and (last) indefinite block with date, blocking admin and rationale to the collapsed table at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SirIsaacBrock to facilitate the discussion. Hans Adler 07:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hans. Nathan^T 12:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks Hans. The last detected one seems to be over a year ago. (For info, I'm gathering background for a ban appeal filed with ArbCom.) Roger Davies ^talk 06:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I actually expect to see Green Squares around since he obviously means well and tries to follow policies. Not that I think it's a good idea, unless you can find a good mentor who can teach him AGF. I do not know much about the content that he has built and I expect you will look much closer, but what I have seen consists mostly of excessive quotations. Hans Adler 15:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he will definitely need a mentor. His behavior doesn't seem to have changed over the years he's been socking - personal attacks, edit warring and a real failure to understand WP:RS (not a sin in itself, only when combined with an unwillingness to accept he might be wrong). If he can be helped to overcome these problems I'd have no problem with him coming back (so long as it was understood that if he ever used a sockpuppet again he'd be banished again). Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This is the text of an email sent today to User:Green Squares:

As you have rejected out of hand each of our various proposals for mentorship or editing restrictions, the Ban Appeal Subcommittee has no alternative but to decline your appeal. You may appeal again next year. If, on reflection, you decide that you are able to cooperate with restrictions, you may appeal earlier. A copy of this message will be posted on your talk page.

For the Ban Appeal Subcommittee, Roger Davies ^talk 06:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ban suspended

The Ban Appeal Subcommittee has considered the block on User:Green Squares (a sock of User:SirIsaacBrock and it is suspended, subject to the user's unconditional acceptance of, and adherence to, the following restrictions:

The user edits from one and only one account, namely User:Green Squares;
The user is mentored by John Vandenberg for a period of three months;
The user is topic banned from any article relating to fighting dogs and/or attack dogs and/or the associated dog breeds, broadly defined.

The editor has unconditionally accepted the terms by email and the timetable will run from the time the editor is unblocked by his mentor, John Vandenberg, who is currently travelling. Roger Davies ^talk 06:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user elected to have user:WritersCramp unblocked. Arbcom was informed and there was no objection to this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for unblocking my original account. Just a clarification on the topic ban, I believe it lasts six months, until August 12, 2010. WritersCramp (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Falconry of Kenya

A tag has been placed on Falconry of Kenya requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Humane

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

This article as it stands is a dictionary entry. I see no prospect for it being anything else. Adjectives in general are bad titles for articles. --Trovatore (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Trovatore (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lottatore Brindisino

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 Lottatore Brindisino, 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 this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance 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. – anna 13:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Filip02.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Filip02.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Ben Nyaumbe" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Ben Nyaumbe should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Ben Nyaumbe 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. Plantdrew (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Venomous spiders has been nominated for deletion

Category:Venomous spiders has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 20:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dog Legislation Council of Canada

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 Dog Legislation Council of Canada requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. StarM 20:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of IWar for deletion

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

–Vipz (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]