User talk:JohnnyLurg

Welcome to Wikipedia from ForgottenHistory

Hi, JohnnyLurg. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ForgottenHistory (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Additionally, many thanks for your contributions to revert vandalism from Wikipedia!--ForgottenHistory (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casmalia, California

Hello! About the town of Casmalia, California - is there any evidence that the name "Casmalia" is of Spanish origin? The article doesn't say. BTW since you have been working with the category Category:Place names of Spanish origin in the United States (as have I), you might want to see the discussion about that category here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Johnny Ramone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Jewish Journal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Eagles (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Take It to the Limit (song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, could you unban me from Oh Internet

I got banned for expressing my negative opinion of some aspects of the early site, I don't think that is a legitimate reason to get banned, I was making good articles one of them became featured.Nex Carnifex (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I informed Sherrod that you want to be unbanned. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nex Carnifex (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters

Hi JohnnyLurg,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi JohnnyLurg,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Secret Hate

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 Secret Hate 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 band or musician, 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.

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". 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 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion tags

I have reverted the tags you placed on ‎Dan Schneider (writer) and Sappy - both are clearly notable. – ukexpat (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sin 34

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 Sin 34 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 band or musician, 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.

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". 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 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. Vrenator ^talk 10:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YO

Did you inform Sherrod? Killhamster is the one that banned me btw, his reason "Go back to arguing on TOW talk pages and telling everyone how much you hate us." Sounds a bit personal huh? Nex Carnifex (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I informed Sherrod a while ago. I already told you that. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David Tanny

The article David Tanny 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. The nominator also raised the following concern:

All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.

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. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Tanny article

Nice try there, getting rid of the delete tag when you were cleaning up that vandalism, but the article still isn't worthy of an encyclopedia. Maybe you should have looked at the talk page first before jumping the gun, pretty embarrassing that you even think a David Tanny article belongs in an encyclopedia. 50.82.220.22 (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Falling Idols

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 Falling Idols 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 band or musician, 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.

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. —Darkwind (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Tanny for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Tanny 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/David Tanny until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. SummerPhD (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:SummerPhD, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Secret Hate for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Secret Hate 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/Secret Hate until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. SummerPhD (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Miley Cyrus. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read the source linked in the reference: http://www.tmz.com/2011/11/27/miley-cyrus-stoner-weed-video#.T2Vaw9BJoTk the exact term used is the one reported in the article. Wikipedia reports what secondary sources say, we do not interpret them. Elizium23 (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh internet

you got banned too now that's such bullshit lol Nex Carnifex (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-could you ask her to unban me? Nex Carnifex (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Girl from the North Country

There are no definitive references warranting inclusion, although there is speculation - the songs already listed are certain. - See this: [1] and this [2]...Modernist (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

How about you try using edit summaries, instead of just undoing everyone's edits. It is extremely annoying. Bruce from Family Guy does not warrant his own page, and if you undo my redirect again, I'll take it to WP:AFD. CTJF83 10:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of James Quall

The article James Quall has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. 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. Scopecreep (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon...

You're a little late to this party. He, very clearly, didn't say they were from Oregon. Gran² 21:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D'OH! Also YOINK! --JohnnyLurg (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bruce the Performance Artist.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bruce the Performance Artist.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Amanda Wenk

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

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. →Σ τ c. 01:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP problems

Please do not add unsourced material, poorly sourced material, or rumours, to biographies of living people. Our WP:BLP policy spells it out in great detail, but here's the short form: do that again, and you will be blocked from editing.—Kww(talk) 19:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you add defamatory content, as you did at Raven-Symoné, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Elizium23 (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for reinserting a BLP violation after warning. Any administrator can unblock when editor agrees to stop inserting BLP violating material into articles. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 03:18, 22 May 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

The vast majority (over 2,500) of my edits have been constructive and I will not add defamatory content or use sockpuppets again JohnnyLurgReturns (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

When you do something like this with a blatant sock account, consider waiting more than three hours before coming here all penitent and requesting unblock. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 28 May 2012 (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.

Non-admin observation: Did you just request unblock using a sockpuppet account? And why isn't that one blocked; it is tagged already... Elizium23 (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

The vast majority (over 2,500) of my edits have been constructive and I will not add defamatory content or use sockpuppets again. Two weeks have passed and I apologize for my edits on the Raven-Symone page, since they went against the Wikipedia rule that speculation of people's sexuality, even when it appears in magazines and online sources, is unencyclopaedic. . JohnnyLurg (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please provide a list of the sockpuppets you've used. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:44, 9 June 2012 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The vast majority (over 2,500) of my edits have been constructive and I will not add defamatory content or use sockpuppets again. Two weeks have passed and I apologize for my edits on the Raven-Symone page, since they went against the Wikipedia rule that speculation of people's sexuality, even when it appears in magazines and online sources, is unencyclopaedic. My sockpuppets include BandOfBarneys, EdaurdoJones, JohnnyLurgREDUX, JohnnyLurgReturns, P0ison25, RedheadJoe, Ruabadfish2, and WalterJid. JohnnyLurg (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're sure that's all of them? I'd also be a little more convinced if your request was more sincere - you're essentially reposted the same request three times. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:27, 10 June 2012 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Yes, those are all of my sockpuppets. JohnnyLurg (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. We unblock editors all the time, some after long-term blocks, when they put forward a convincing case that they will not return to whatever shenanigans got them blocked in the first place. If you can do the same, make a new unblock request and state your case. We'll evaluate it on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:28, 14 June 2012 (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 would like a simple explanation as to why you created so many sockpuppets. Or indeed, why create any?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used WalterJid in several years because it was blocked for persistent vandalism of San Luis Obispo High School (and mistaken for a sockpuppet of User:Conorchurch as a result -- see User_talk:Conorchurch). The rest of the sockpuppets were used for block evasion, since I kept finding things that needed to be edited after I was blocked. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will concede that that appears to be an honest answer. So now tell me how we can be sure that you won't create more, given that your answer shows a degree of disregard for wikipedia rules and procedures. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too would like an explanation why, even though a block applies to you the person, you felt it to be ok to create more accounts, contrary to policy. Indeed, any unblock must be predicated by the understanding that a) you must use one account, and one account alone to edit Wikipedia, b) all others will be indefinitely blocked, c) you cannot edit anonymously, d) you cannot create any new accounts, e) these restrcitions may be verified at anytime by a checkuser, and f) any violation will lead to an indefinite WP:BAN from the project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no words. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be considered for unblock you will have to find some words; and moreover, they will need to be convincing.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:06, 13 June 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am much more familiar with Wikipedia's regulations against sockpuppets than I was at the time I was blocked. I made nearly 3,000 edits and a vast majority of my edits were constructive. Three months have passed since my block, and I promise not to indulge in the same destructive, obnoxious behavior which led to my block. JohnnyLurg (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The standard offer is six months. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:59, 13 September 2012 (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 saw this request and was minded to unblock. The editor has given assurances that there will be no more disruption, and I was prepared to accept this (and also per WP:ROPE.) Is there any reason we need to insist on a 6-month wait in this case? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

it has been over six months. JohnnyLurg (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have accepted your unblock request per your promise below, but will note that any socking, or violations of our policy on biographies of living persons will result in the block being re-applied. Additionally, for the knowledge of other users monitoring this request I did perform a CheckUser on this account and can confirm that JohnnyLurg has not socked during the course of his/her block. Tiptoety ^talk 17:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per one of your first declines: "We unblock editors all the time, some after long-term blocks, when they put forward a convincing case that they will not return to whatever shenanigans got them blocked in the first place. If you can do the same, make a new unblock request and state your case. We'll evaluate it on the merits". We need to you explain, as per WP:GAB, why you should be unblocked - it's not a situation of "wait six months" - if it was, we simply would have blocked you for 6 months (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I explained it all already multiple times, especially in my last unblock request: "I am much more familiar with Wikipedia's regulations against sockpuppets than I was at the time I was blocked. I made nearly 3,000 edits and a vast majority of my edits were constructive....I promise not to indulge in the same destructive, obnoxious behavior which led to my block." --JohnnyLurg (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Schneider (TV producer)

I have reverted your addition to this article a second time. User edited sites, like the one you cited, are not reliable sources. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Violation of terms given upon unblock by socking at Dan Schneider (writer) using Sow-crates (CheckUser confirmed). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 02:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards man listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Backwards man. Since you had some involvement with the Backwards man redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Brickster listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Brickster. Since you had some involvement with the The Brickster redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 14:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Brainkrieg" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Brainkrieg has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27 § Brainkrieg until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 00:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Onion Bubs" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Onion Bubs has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27 § Onion Bubs until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 00:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The Unguraits" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Unguraits has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27 § The Unguraits until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 00:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Homeschool Winner" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Homeschool Winner has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27 § Homeschool Winner until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 00:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]