User talk:Nietzsche 2

Welcome

Welcome!Kemsnissis

Hello, Nietzsche 2, 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! User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 05:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Hi, I've noticed that you've been altering the headings and wikilinks on the talk pages of some articles. You should, however, be aware that talk pages don't need to conform to the usual Wikipedia standards (although it is preferable), see WP:TALK. You should be careful when altering other people's edits to talk pages and they may see your changes as nitpicking. --JD554 (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French people of Jewish descent

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:Parent1]]
[[Category:Parent2]]

Contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards,--Stepheng3 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International footballers

Hello. Regarding your edit of Reg Davies, where you removed category:Welsh footballers, the description of category:Wales international footballers explicitly states that all players in that category should also be left in category:Welsh footballers. The same applies to international footballers of other nationalities. I have now reverted that edit. --Badmotorfinger (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American actors

Category:Jewish American actors was already created and then deleted a while back. Please don't populate the category until you're sure that it is a viable category, or you may end up wasting your time. I believe WP:DRV would be the right place to see about getting it undeleted properly. Will Beback talk 05:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the CfD: [1]. Will Beback talk 05:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was not reached, and it was over a year and a half ago. The category is good, as there is a Jewish American culture influencing acting; there are many articles which should be put in the cat. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a question on how to handle this at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Meantime, you appear to be an experienced user. Have you ever had an account blocked? It seems like there have been a lot of conflicts over Jewish categories over the years and I'd hate for us all to rehash old disputes. Will Beback talk 07:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that any deleted page needs to go through WP:DRV before being recreated, if substantially identical. You can dispute the deltion there. Will Beback talk 08:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm semi-experienced at reading and editing pages, but I have never been to DRV or Cats for Discussion, though I will attempt to assist the debate there. I previously edited under another username, but was not blocked; I logged out, forgot my password, and was thus unable to log into my account - that's why I created this account. I have only ever created two Jewish-related categories (the other one, also good and valid, is French people of Jewish descent). I have not, until this month, been involved in Jewish-related categories. Many entertainers etc are influenced by their Jewish family members, and I feel it important to recognise the contributions and influence of Jewish culture and people, and the categories enhance that. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just requested undeletion of the cat at DRV. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Goody

Upbringing

Sorry, I regard information about her mother's past to be irrelevant to Jade, and a breach of WP:BLP; it's irrelevant in my view to the subject at hand. Jimbo Wales has made his view on this quite clear, that we owe a duty of basic humanity to the subjects of our articles; even more so when they are not the subjects of their own articles. If you were a recovered "crack addict", and had moved forward, unless it was relevant to your own life, rather than someone else's, would you want it mentioned here? I doubt it. So, on balance, I don't think it adds to an understanding of Jade Goody, as a topic. --Rodhull andemu 01:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jade's parents and upbringing made her the severely psychologically damaged person who, in 2002, quickly became the star / monster at the centre of a circus in the low-brow media. Her extremely unfortunate life, growing up in severe poverty, with both parents drug addicts and criminals, had a strongly negative and lasting effect on Jade. The information on her parents is already in the public domain, having been stated many times in the media, as well as having been written about by Jade herself (or more likely her ghost writer) in her autobiographies. Her mother ended the relationship with the father because he was keeping guns under Jade's cot. Jade remembers hiding goods stolen by her mother from the police when she was 4. No member of Jade's family ever took legal action about any of the statements made. I cannot see a reason for censoring true, verified information on Jackiey Budden, who is by her own choice, since 2007, a public figure. Therefore the blp guidelines on non-public figures don't really apply to her. I cannot see how censoring mention of her lesbianism is justified: she is out; it has been clearly stated by the mainstream national media, whom Jade chose to mention it to. She used to have her own article, and still has her own section in the Celebrity Big Brother 2007 article. She has many of the same major faults as her daughter, and certainly does not want to be left alone, away from the public eye. She has chosen, on multiple occasions, to gain media attention, including by speaking to the media and appearing on reality TV. Even someone with as little intelligence as her would have already been fully aware that choosing to go into the media spotlight would mean that the media would publish various details about her life (things from years ago as well as recent and current things), as had happened with her daughter. A biography is about a person's whole life, not just their career / public life. As such, it should mention everything that is true, relevant and verifiable about the subject's life. For both parents to be drug-addicted criminals who fell massively short of even the most basic parenting requirements, and where it is a case of the child looking after the mother, is very relevant to the subject. Jade Goody suffers lifelong damage as a result of the lack of parenting she received from her selfish, self-centred, reckless, stupid, careless and uncaring parents. Jade's harsh and deprived background does not excuse or justify her highly unpleasant and unnecessarily aggressive behaviour, but it does explain it. Many other Wikipedia biographies mention the subjects parents and upbringing, including, in many cases (alleged) abuse / criminality by the parents. Details about Jade's parents certainly do add to an understanding of why Jade Goody is the way she is, which is one of the main things readers of the article want to know. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Down Hall

I've seen you've re-added Essex after Down Hall. I don't necessarily object to this, but thought I'd draw your attention to the discussion I had with Sky83 here. Cheers Cycle~ (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary to clarify in Goody's article that the location of her forthcoming marriage is definitely Essex. Many sources wrongly state that the marriage location is in Hertfordshire, but maps show that both Down Hall itself, and nearby Hatfield Heath, are both wholly within Essex. Down Hall does not have a Wikipedia article, nor is it mentioned in the Hatfield Heath article. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Down Hall itself claims to be in Hertfordshire, and many external articles also claim it to be in Hertfordshire, which is why Cycle~ and I had the discussion and came to the conclusion that the fairest way to word it to avoid dispute and edit wars would be to put Down Hall, Hatfield Heath. The link to the Hatfield Heath article states that it lies across the border and while the place may be considered to be in Essex by some sources, the venue is on lists of both Hertfordshire and Essex hotels (and perhaps crucially, it's postal address on its own website states Hertfordshire). Rather than polluting the Jade Goody article with this explanation, it seems to be better to simply link to Hatfield Heath and let that article prove where the place is and just let Jade Goody's article prove where the wedding is, and that is, essentially, at Down Hall, Hatfield Heath. I hope this clarifies why we have phrased that section that way, and I hope you can see where we are coming from. Best wishes. Sky83 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you changed the reading again. Please don't start an editing war over this. The way you have worded it creates an editing dispute which is pointless. Both of us and anybody else can be correct if you can just leave it at Hatfield Heath, with a link to the article on Hatfield Heath. Clarification, as you put it, is not going to help when it is just one user's opinion as to the clarification. I think your work on the article is to be commended, this is just not really a positive direction to go in. Sky83 (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you saw my last message on the Goody talk page, so I'll leave it here for you just in case. What I said was this: "I'm wondering if this phrasing might help end this: ....at Down Hall country house in Hatfield Heath, on the border of Hertfordshire and Essex..... Since the article on Hatfield Heath actually states that the village sits on the border of Hertfordshire and Essex, this could be a decent compromise if there is an insistence on a county being included. Anyone agree?" How would you feel about that? Sky83 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three problems with that suggestion: 1) DH is not in HH, it is to the south of it; 2) Both DH and HH are wholly within Essex, neither touches the border; 3) The question many people reading the article will want answered is:- is the marriage location in Essex or Herts? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous category

Hi there. Just wondering why you created a category for her? All the pages in the category are linked in her article anyway, so why did you find this necessary? I'm not specifically disputing it, just can't really see a justification for it, that's all. Sky83 (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's massively (in)famous and has a high enough profile to make me believe that she justifies her own category. I don't know at what point someone qualifies for their own category, but I believe that an eponymous category for her is good, as it shows at a glance the group of articles that are directly related to her. Many other highly notable figures have their own categories, and they probably have most or all of the articles in their categories linked from their article. Goody has spent over six-and-a-half years at the centre of the attention of the tabloid / celebrity-centred media in the UK, despite her having no positive qualities - a phenomenon that needs more coverage on Wikipedia that it currently receives. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I actually partially agree with you, but I would be very careful how you word your POV on this. It's fine that you dislike Goody, everyone can have an opinion, but if an editor disputes something you have written on her, having it on record that you think she has no positive qualities might not be the best for you. I'm not going to nominate the category for deletion, but I suspect it won't be long before someone does. Sky83 (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Nietszche, I'm getting sick and tired of you bad mouthing Jade Goody on the article talk page. While many of your comments are helpful, and you've certainly improved the article in recent weeks, you continually sprinkle this with your anti-Goody feelings. Please stop doing your name a disservice and try to comment objectively. This is a firm warning. Listen to it please. — R ² 19:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Beverly Eckert

On February 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beverly Eckert, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Dinnerladies, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. 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. Jackl 11:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was an improvement, and gave the TP improved readability and structure. Moving things about the same subject into one section (new sections are only supposed to be created when starting a new topic), and adding a new heading for comments which did not have a heading at all (all comments should be under a topic heading). My edit was certainly not vandalism - please look at it again. How do you consider the TP is better as it is than what I changed it to? I did not remove any information. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I wouldn't have said you were vandalising, and i'm sure you were trying to improve the readability of the page. It's a bit of a grey area, though, and it may be best just to leave the talk pages as they have organically developed. There's a list of things that you shouldn't do around talk page comments, and this isn't one of them, so I wouldn't worry too much. :) --Ged UK (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Cameron's son Ivan's death

Vaguely agree though it is public news all over the wireless etc so not really private SimonTrew (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for removing the date of death from the infobox was nothing to do with privacy. Of course the death should be mentioned in the article; it is very relevant to D Cameron's biography. The death is mentioned in the personal life section, and all that is needed after the dead child's name in the infobox is (deceased). That is how Gordon Brown's article is (one of his three children is dead). Nietzsche 2 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad

You're right about this diff - I was easily confused by the bright shiny red on the diffs. Sorry! FlyingToaster 00:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? 2A02:C7C:8609:FF00:C562:7A90:A88F:D6A4 (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murdered where?

On the Marie Trintignant page, the categories include murdered in lithuania, and murdered abroad, but since she died in Paris I just wondered if those categories are right 92.22.183.97 (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected her place of death in her article. The categories are correct, as she was French and the fatal injury was deliberately inflicted on her in Lithuania, even though she died of said injury in France, after being brought there whilst dying. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duffy (Talk)

Dont worry about what is said on talk pages. Please do not delete comments - comment on them by all means, but do not remove unless false, malicious, or insulting - each is entitled to their own opinion which is what this entry is (Please note - it isnt my entry - personally all the girl has, is a good pair of legs - a crap singer - but thats me!)

Comments on Talk pages should not be altered in any way as they are a record of activity on the page. Even the "false, malicious, or insulting" type comments should be left to be correct --92.6.210.185 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each talk page is meant to be about improving the article it is attached to. The only message I removed from said TP was from a fan saying that only good things about her should be in the article; that no-one should write anything negative about her. Under talk page guidelines, it shouldn't have been added in the first place. I believe I was improving the TP; the fan in question was telling us to go against a central Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. I removed the comment to stop anyone being influenced to break a major WP policy. A lot of the editors of celebrities' biographies are fans and people who work for / with or know the subject, and as such can be very biased. Perhaps it would have been better if I had left the comment present, but added after it that the comment is wrong and that we must be neutral. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move article Yukio Endo (gymnast) incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Yukio Endo (gymnast) to a different title - however your request is either incomplete or has been contested for being controversial, and has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page.

Even when there are only two it doesn't need a dis page, you can just make a hatnote to the less known of the two. You can actually try this move in the uncontroversial section if you wish - the worst that can happen is it will just get bumped into other if anyone disagrees. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Dead people of debated sexual orientation

Category:Dead people of debated sexual orientation, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Cgingold (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Werdnawerdna

Substantial and creditable evidence has been presented to me that it is highly likely you are User:Werdnawerdna, a permanently banned user. Further, you are repeating the actions that led to his banning, despite warnings. Therefore, after investigation, I have taken the decision to apply an indefinite block to this account. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 14 April 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).

Nietzsche 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block is sudden and unwarranted. I am a good editor who has improved hundreds of articles whilst working within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have been civil and have never vandalized or trolled. Blocking a productive editor whose presence is positive for the encyclopedia is a counter-productive action. Any mistakes etc. that I have made are tiny in comparison to the the improvements I have made, both in number and effect.

Decline reason:

Declined because you failed to address the reason for your block, namely that you are a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user. —Travis ^talk 17:39, 14 April 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.

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).

Nietzsche 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I addressed my actions, as it seemed I was accused of bad editing. Although I am aware of / acquainted with Werdnawerdna, I am not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of said person. If this action against me is in any way due to my recent creation of the category Dead people of debated sexual orientation, then it seems that I need to point out that I created it 2 days ago in a good faith response to a red category Historic women of debated sexuality, which was on Jane Addams' article. I understand that creating articles and categories from red links is encouraged. Therefore, as the red cat was too narrow to contain many categories and vague, I created the new cat. My cat, which is neutral, is better than the red cat on two counts: a) it isn't limited to women; b) it specifically draws a clear bold line in avoiding any possibility of living people being included, which I did to avoid violations of BLP policy, whilst allowing inclusion regardless of how long a subject has been dead. (Some people would consider a person whom is alive but has been out of the public eye for decades to be 'historic'; some others would only consider someone historic if they have been dead for decades). Nietzsche 2 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You haven't addressed the reason for the block, beyond issuing a flat denial. Instead, you are arguing about why a certain category should exist, which is essentially equivalent to arguing that you think a permanently-banned user's actions were correct. You're doing yourself no favours with this line of argument. Read WP:GAB for advice, please. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:27, 14 April 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.

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).

Nietzsche 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block is unnecessary; it is not in line with blocking policy. I am a civil, frequent, constructive editor whom adheres to policy and follows guidelines. I am not involved in any sockpuppetry. I have edited most days, constructively, for nearly three months, without ever being blocked - until today. I apologise for my mistakes; my intentions here are good. If I am unblocked, my editing will be better than it has been so far. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is very confused. Once again, you do not appear to be addressing the reason for your block. In the same request, you claim to do nothing wrong then apologize for your mistakes. That you are currently making unobjectionable edits is not at issue. It seems clear that you are a new account for a previously blocked user; if you want to edit, you must request reinstatement at your prior account. Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:46, 15 April 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 think three reviews by three different admins are about enough to establish that you haven't fundamentally addressed the issue. This block is based on CU results and contribution analysis... and is very much "in line with blocking policy". You need to address why Werdnawerdna should be unblocked, or conclusively demonstrate that you are not Werdnawerdna. If you repeatedly request unblocking without addressing the issues, your ability to post to this talk page may be restricted. ++Lar: t/c 02:43, 15 April 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).

Nietzsche 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologized for my mistakes because I have made some minor errors (most of which I corrected myself), and because the guide to appealing blocks said to apologize. I know very little about checkuser and have never used it myself. I do not know why anyone would want to checkuser an account which is used only in a positive way to make improvements. Lar claims I have repeated actions that got Werdnawerdna banned. However, having looked at his talk page, it states that he was banned for being hostile, racist and homophobic; I haven't done any of those things at all. I hope that demonstrates I am not Werdnawerdna. I am trying to prove the fact that I am a good editor who wishes to continue improving Wikipedia articles. If I am unblocked, I will prove that I am a constructive editor, and that I do not cause any trouble. I am trying my best to address the issues I am being asked to address. I have not abused this talk page, any article, or any Wikipedian, in any way. Please let me show that I am an asset to this encyclopedia. Blocks are to prevent damage to the encylopedia. I will not damage it, I will improve it to the best of my abilities and within the rules. Therefore the block is unnecessary, please unblock me. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The link between you and this banned editor is very strong; not repeating some of his worst behavior doesn't indicate that you are someone else. I will not unblock you on the basis that you claim you will be an asset to Wikipedia, you have to address your prior indefinite block and your use of a sockpuppet account to evade it. Given what Lar has said, and given the trust the community has in his judgement, it is clear you are the same user, and requests of this sort are a waste of time. If you make any more that dodge the issue, I would support removing your ability to edit this talk page. Mango juice^talk 06:20, 16 April 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.

CfD nomination of Category:Deaths by beating

I have nominated Category:Deaths by beating (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/* Rajesh khanna filmography */

We need your help in filling up the column of directors - which you can get from http://www.citwf.com/person241842.htm in the article rajesh khanna filmography in wikipedia.As you seen to be interested in working in wikipedia articles we would be gald if you contribute in filling up the DIRECTORS cloumn and in the NOTES column fill up the awards won and nominations won by khanna against a particular film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrik88music (talk • contribs) 14:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Race-related plays

Category:Race-related plays, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drug dealers has been nominated for discussion

Category:Drug dealers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black British sportspeople has been nominated for deletion

Category:Black British sportspeople 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Skin cancer survivors has been nominated for deletion

Category:Skin cancer survivors 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Infamous Assassinations for deletion

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

Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

??? 2A02:C7C:8609:FF00:C562:7A90:A88F:D6A4 (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]