User talk:Spem Reduxit

This user may have left Wikipedia. Spem Reduxit has not edited Wikipedia since 25 August 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, Spem Reduxit, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Giant Snowman 07:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Roderick MacKenzie (British Army officer)

added links pointing to St. John's and Fort Cumberland

Charlotte Sutherland

added a link pointing to Nepisiguit

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brice Goldsborough

I sent away for the info 9 years ago, and moved 4 years ago, and I have not been able to find the file I started on him. I bought a few photos from Ebay and ordered his crash investigation for him and for Eddie August Schneider. I still have the Schneider folder and posted most of that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marquis wheat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wheat belt. 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) 09:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Joseph Cunard

added a link pointing to Bathurst

The Angry Brigade

added a link pointing to Stonewall

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ann Gorman Condon

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 Ann Gorman Condon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/Acadiensis/article/view/10677/11357. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed 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. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned the copyright violations from this article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Blanket statements

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

WP:DICDEF

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Hamet Dunn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asquith. 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) 12:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Nova Scotia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Thomas Atkins and John George Bourinot. 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) 09:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Bathurst, New Brunswick

added a link pointing to Northumberland County

James Hamet Dunn

added a link pointing to Richard Bennett

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lawsuits of New Brunswick for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lawsuits of New Brunswick 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/Lawsuits of New Brunswick 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 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. Ilyushka88 | ^Talk! _Contribs 23:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

James Roger Whelan

added links pointing to DSO, DFC and Western Desert

Connolly's quarry

added a link pointing to James Rogers

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caraquet and Gulf Shore Railway, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bathurst, Tracadie and James Rogers. 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) 09:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Kennedy Francis Burns

added links pointing to Burnsville and Novelli

Abraham Pineo Gesner

added a link pointing to John Ross

James Hamet Dunn

added a link pointing to George Gilbert

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Augustus Henry Novelli

added a link pointing to Chancery

Edward Gerald Byrne

added a link pointing to Halifax

List of Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, 1760–79

added a link pointing to Treaty of Paris

List of New Brunswick case law

added a link pointing to Saint John

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Augustus Henry Novelli

added a link pointing to Trinity College

List of New Brunswick case law

added a link pointing to Saint John River

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Bourassa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Rose. 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) 11:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Eric Phillips, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victor Emanuel. 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) 10:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Canadian Magazine

Hello, Spem Reduxit,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Canadian Magazine should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Magazine .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 20 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the R. B. Bennett page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ash content determination

The article Ash content determination has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

per WP:NOTMANUAL

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Garchy (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Augustus Henry Novelli

Hi I'm reviewing this article. You seem to have done substantial work on it, and and it's not clear why he is notable? A banking scandal? It not clear. Can you updates it. 11:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Argus Corporation. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. FuriouslySerene (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're still unclear why I posted this here, it was for this edit, in which you decided it would be wise to describe a writer in the Globe and Mail as an "ink stained wretch." To me, that's clear vandalism. Please refrain from adding insults, and other personal opinions, into Wikipedia in the future. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Terry Fox Elementary School (Bathurst, New Brunswick)

Hello, Spem Reduxit. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Terry Fox Elementary School (Bathurst, New Brunswick), for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Terry Fox Elementary School (Bathurst, New Brunswick) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terry Fox Elementary School (Bathurst, New Brunswick) 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/Terry Fox Elementary School (Bathurst, New Brunswick) 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 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Times, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Raymond. 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) 10:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd v Ontario, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 21:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd v Ontario

Hi Spem Reduxit and thank you for your contributions. Works of the government are copyright in Canada. Please be careful that all material copied from court decisions are framed as quotations and not presented as though it's material you wrote yourself. See for example the change I made to the above article. If you could please start doing it this way in the future that would be perfect. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, thanks for catching the oversight. Don't know why this one escaped me. Spem Reduxit (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roland statues

Hi, I wanted to discuss the question about the connection Roland statues-the Hanseatic League a bit since I saw that you reversed my deletion of your edit. Philippe Dollinger specifically notes in the standard work "The German Hansa" about Roland statues that although there are several Roland statues in the Baltic Sea area, there is nothing particularly Hanseatic about them (in my German edition, Kröner 2012, on page 359). Since they are not associated with the Hanseatic League, I cannot see any reason to imply such a connection. Do you have any other reliable sources indicating something else? If not I think it's best if we leave that sentence out of the article. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since you have a solid reference on the topic I'm happy to incorporate it. How about a footnoted sentence like yours? It might clarify for others, and obviate for them, this discussion.

"Philippe Dollinger notes that although there are several Roland statues in the Baltic Sea area, there is nothing particularly Hanseatic about them.^[1]"

Spem Reduxit (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I've added it. Thanks for the constructive dialogue! Best, Yakikaki (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a pleasure! Did you know about the German-language list of Rolands? I've mentioned it on the page in question, and also added a new Category. Feel free to adjust the wording of the DE sentence. Best, Spem Reduxit (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good idea with the list, I think that's a very helpful addition to the article. I'll see if I can find the time to translate it into English in the coming days or so! Best, Yakikaki (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail

In response to this edit: As of February 2017, the Daily Mail is disallowed as a source on English Wikipedia. For details, see WP:DAILYMAIL. TompaDompa (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beg to differ. The disallowance was based on the following question:

Should we prohibit the use of The Daily Mail as a source? I envisage something just short of blacklisting, whereby its introduction to an article could be accepted only upon there being a demonstrable need to use it instead of other sources.

As few newspapers have published May's remarks in full, the DM is acceptable as per Hillbillyholiday's original question.

Spem Reduxit (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was indeed the original question, but it's the closing admin's statement (Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. [...]) that counts. TompaDompa (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, TY for your comments. In the end, I drove InedibleHulk to search for another source of the information. I don't know why s/he has such a hateon for the DM. Could it be due to DMophobia? Spem Reduxit (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A gentle reminder...

You may not have realised it, but you have reverted various people at least five times on the June 2017 London attack page, which is some way past the WP:3RR guidelines. I am sure it has happened without you realising it, but it may be better to rely a little more on the talk page and a little less on the revert button for a while? - Sigersson (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the gentle reminder. I know the guidelines. "To revert is to undo the action of another editor." Please show me where I have broken the guideline. The operative word is "another". You seem quite experienced here, yet your username shows up only as of 30 May 2017. Are you a sock-puppet or were you banned for improper conduct? Spem Reduxit (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well that you have reverted other editors at least six times in the last 24 hours. I have already told you I am not a sock, and what my history is; whether you believe me or not is not something that I care about, although any passing admin may decide to pick you up on such an uncivil accusation made on the basis of no evidence. - Sigersson (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how does one obtain that kind of experience in only six days with no controversy? I stand on the definition of the guidelines. Your imputation about me on subject page is contemptible and I have replied in kind. I welcome the judgment of an admin. Spem Reduxit (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Your recent editing history at June 2017 London attack shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the definition of an edit war. " To revert is to undo the action of another editor." You have misapplied it, and I wish you would climb down your overhasty tag. Spem Reduxit (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to be reminded about WP:CIVIL too and WP:NPA. You clearly are not familiar with edit warring as you might think. 3RR states you must not "perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". You did so six times, and now run the risk of being blocked. I'd follow procedures more carefully if I were you. Wes Wolf ^Talk 19:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, that warning template above (a standard warning issued via Twinkle) is in regards to three revert rule as seen in this edit summary. So you may wish to "reapply" your knowledge. Wes Wolf ^Talk 20:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, and this is visible in the edit logs of June 2017 London attack, Sigersson was the first one to descend from WP:CIVIL behaviour. I had little choice but to come to my own self-defence. I thank you, Wesley Wolf, for your concern and hope that you come to a more nuanced view on this particular event. Spem Reduxit (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where I have breached the civility policy, but my apologies to you for any slight you may have felt. This is the last message I wish to leave here, so please do not ping me again. - Sigersson (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your civility towards myself, @Spem Reduxit:, and not any incivility endured on the article itself. Telling someone to "climb down your overhasty tag" is uncivil and borderline personally directed attack. It is clearly evident that you are not overly-familiar with Wikipedia policies and conduct, more so as you copied my signature and posted it into a comment, rather than {{ping}} my attention. It is furthermore evident that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia as you misinterpreted and misconstrued warring with three-revert rule, and also assumed the warning template above was about "edit reverting" and not "three-revert rule". You are welcome to view your talk page history to see that the warning I issued was concerning WP:3RR and now WP:WAR. Also your use of an intemperate language towards others does not help the maintaining of civility, if your aim is for solutions to be resolved into your favour. Wes Wolf ^Talk 21:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I leave it for others to determine whether "climb down your overhasty tag" is uncivil and a borderline personally directed attack. Personally, I had considered other much less temperate language, but settled on this quotation because I was interested in a solution to be resolved in my favour. In my experience of the wider world, one rarely obtains a favourable solution if one's remarks are milquetoast. Spem Reduxit (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who uses polysyllabics in a sesquipedalian manner as if to place themselves much higher than the person they are interacting with is neither helpful nor constructive. Mimicking words of others is also condescending and patronising. You may wish to be less indiscriminate in your choice of words. Wes Wolf ^Talk 21:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wut? Spem Reduxit (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To put it into Layman's terms, you may wish to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Trying to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man only makes an exhibition out of oneself. You were caught going over 3-reverts, and a warning was rightfully issued. Arguing over it is not gaining any favourable justice. Wikipedia doesn't need everyone (that is one of the essays I like to remind myself most days). Another good one you may wish to read is the Zeroth law of Wikipedia. They are both good reads, and you might learn a bit about being a Wikipedian - I learnt a lot from those. Enjoy the rest of your day! Wes Wolf ^Talk 21:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. You bit on a lure designed for children. Spem Reduxit (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt it. I knew what game you was playing. You're the one who bit the poisoned berry. I was actually typing the simplified version just in case the grey cells didn't understand the big boy language. However, an edit conflict occurred. And for the final time, you may want to watch your language: "Amazing. You bit on a lure designed for children" is a personal attack and trolling. You may well have only been a Wikipedia user since 21 June 2016], but I my friend, have been here since 13 August 2011 - so more experienced in Wikipedia conduct and policies. Wes Wolf ^Talk 21:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Amazing. You bit on a lure designed for children" was a description of my reality. Whether it was appropriate given the circumstances is a matter best left for others who happen on this page in the back of beyond to decide. TTFN. Spem Reduxit (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually surprised you haven't acquired segs on your fingers, after all the typing you're undergoing. How's the WP:AN3 going anyway? I haven't seen any results yet. Although if both you and the other user talk out the dispute then admin's will probably sweep the incident under the rug. They do like it when users discuss and not edit war. Just a helpful hint for your personal pondering. I'll leave the diva alone, and as your behaviour now is getting monotonous. Wes Wolf ^Talk 22:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN3 was resolved many mooons ago, TYVM. Ditto. Spem Reduxit (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sigersson (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Special Envoy on intelligence and law enforcement data sharing a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Widefox; talk 15:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues with that move: 1. do not copy/paste move again. 2. you knew it was contested (by me) but you went ahead anyhow. Both those together, plus the issues listed by other editors mean I have concerns that you need to address, else it a preventative block of your account may be needed to prevent further disruption. Widefox; talk 15:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Disruption (per my comments above), plus other editors. Stop this style of editing now, or you may be blocked. Bold, not reckless. Widefox; talk 15:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TY for your concerns. I moved the article because as I said on the talk opage, it was misnamed. I am surprised at your reaction. You were indeed able to find the new page without any problem. I resolved the orphan issue by linking two articles which had lacked or inserted a dash in the name. It was a legit edit to unify and clean up three or more issues with the namespace. Truth be told, your avuncular manner rubs me the wrong way. You can go fly a kite. Summer's here and I have better things to do than put up with this nonsense. Thanks for the tip about the "move" tab. If I follow the suggestion, it is because it eases the process, not because of your imperative mood. Spem Reduxit (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Your addition to UN Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed copyright violations from UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa, it would be nice if you were not to delete my work so that I could see what you interpret to be copyright violations. In that way, I would be able to adjust my work so as to avoid your nasty messages. Unfortunately, you vaporise my work so that I am unable to rectify my behaviour. This is not a successful outcome for me. And, in the long run, it probably isn't a successful outcome for you. Spem Reduxit (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have noted this unsatisafactory experience on at least three occasions with you, and not once with others. I've let it slide til now, but would like to inform you (seeing as this may well be my last chance) that others may find your behaviour somewhat abrasive. Do you have many friends in real life? Spem Reduxit (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you haven't had coaching experience... or maybe it was a long time ago and you have forgotten what it feels like to be young and foolish? At any rate, I would have been more receptive to your criticism if you were to have made your comments in the typical "sandwich" fashion that seems to be the standard around volunteer organisations, such as this one. You might have complimented me on some aspect of my work, for example, "Gee Spem, I like how you found an important global UN body which was founded more than a decade ago and which, amazingly!, was not known to wikipedians before now." or "Nice work on the spelling and grammar. So far as I have seen, your work is flawless." or even "I like how you always make a reflist and add a number of relevant categories. Well done, Spem." It doesn't take all that much time (maybe 60 seconds) to type in such drivel, but it might mean the difference between making a friend and making the other person baffled at his or her interactions with you. Whatever happens to me hereafter (and I have no great expectations) this will have been worth my time if I have some positive effect on you. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA June 2017

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Widefox; talk 13:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your warning, @Widefox:. Can I ask you please to document your claims with specific examples of my misbehaviour, so that we may both be on the same page in the future with regards to personal attacks? Spem Reduxit (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive343#User:Spem_Reduxit_reported_by_User:Sigersson_.28Result:_.29. Note I've only just noticed that page is an archive despite it not being closed. I believe my edits there should be undone, ping @Diannaa: for either unarchiving/reopening that 3RR thread or just moving/taking to WP:ANI. If you feel you wish to comment/defend yourself in the meantime, then please do so here, or wherever you feel is appropriate. Widefox; talk 13:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't know anything about the management of the 3RR page and its archives. I can say that there likely won't be any admin action taken at this late date on an edit war from June 7, so there's not much point bringing it back to the active case page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I agree. Widefox; talk 22:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Anne Dugas-Horsman

Hi, I'm Usernamekiran. Spem Reduxit, thanks for creating Anne Dugas-Horsman!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Kindly make sure the article states why the subject important. Thanks. :-)

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

—usernamekiran(talk) 02:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association

The article Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication this is more remarkable than average for a court case. We don't list every case on Wikipedia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, thank you. Spem Reduxit (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of R v Mentuck

The article R v Mentuck has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No obvious reason why this particular case rises to the level for inclusion. Not every case is published here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, thank you. Spem Reduxit (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association 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/Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers' Association 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 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Kessler AFD

You forgot to sign your last comment (see [1]) at the Kessler AFD. Quis separabit? 14:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! TY @Rms125a@hotmail.com:

Ishtar

Stop reverting at Ishtar. Those who claim an Ishtar=Easter connection are all conspicuously NOT recognized or professional subject area scholars, and usually have a special axe to grind (Hislop: anti-Catholicism; JWs: hatred of celebration of Easter; etc. etc.). If the Ishtar/Easter connection is mentioned at all on Wikipedia, therefore it must be negatively. I tweaked the wording a little, and if you have actual improvements to offer, feel free to discuss them on the article talk page, but don't delete. AnonMoos (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonMoos: I don't take kindly to the imperative mood. GFY. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Michael Signer, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Acroterion (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Acroterion (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: sorry, I don't understand your complaint. I saw your comment and suggested an alternative. If this is unacceptable to you, please do change it. My edit was not meant to be disruptive. It was meant to describe an event in Signer's history that is significant. If you don't care for my editorial stance you are welcome to modify it. Wiki is a collaborative project and I welcome your constructive input on the Michael Signer page. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were clearly stating personal opinions concerning Signer in Wikipedia's voice. Please stop, and please remember that the article is a biography. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your views on Signer's actions. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: You think I "clearly stat[ed] personal opinions" in my original edit, and I reacted to your comments with my revised edit. Do you think that the Unite the Right rally deserves mention on Charlottesville Mayor Michael Signer's wiki page or not? If so, please do edit my work so that we may come to agreement on a suitable text. If not, please take a deep breath and ask for someone to replace you as arbiter. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rally and aftermath might merit mention, but that doesn't give license for you to introduce editorial commentary claiming that Signer "airbrushed" or "glossed over" "certain parts of inconvenient history." Those are your opinions and are obviously inappropriate commentary in a BLP. Articles, and in particular biographies are not coatracks for your views.If you continue to do that you may be placed under editing sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: I am glad you feel that the event deserves mention on Signer's page. "glossed over certain parts of inconvenient history" follows events quite closely, if you read the nbc29.com reports. I'll look for it and introduce a direct quotation to replace the one to which you object. I welcome your continued input to the paragraph in question. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a talkpage. Use it, remembering that BLP applies to all parts of Wikipedia, and that talkpages are not fora for personal opinion either. Acroterion (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Michael Signer. Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What did I just tell you about talkpages? Get consensus, you are not entitled to repost lightly-rephrased statements of opinions, and now you're introducing synthesis. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Michael Signer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: I'm sorry sir. I thought you agreed that the incident of the rally deserved mention. I edited accordingly. I even went so far as to find a direct quote about "cultural insensitivity" and inserted that where you had objected twice to my language without any positive contribution. Now I find that you went off the handle again. How about we agree to airbrush Michael Signer's history: I will cease to try to please you, and you can continue to drive your Polizeigefangenenwagen around here to your heart's content. Spem Reduxit (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Dolinger, The German Hansa, Kröner 2012, page 359

3RR on Kessler

Ummm, you're up to at least 5 reverts in less than 24 hours on the Kessler article. Please self-revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are up to at least 5 reverts yourself on the Kessler article. Pot calling the kettle black. Spem Reduxit (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. But if you want to do the counting, we can do that at WP:AN3. Seriously, this is totally in good faith - you should revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, you are. Instead of this she said he said type nonsense I'll go to bed soon. Spem Reduxit (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice. But unless you self revert first, I am going to report this at AN3. Particularly since you racked up a couple more edits since my original notice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Talk page to discuss. See for example: Talk:Jason_Kessler#Callout_quotes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

August 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Swarm ♠ 03:45, 25 August 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Volunteer Marek has caused Swarm unwittingly to endorse his whitewashing of at least two WP:RS in the article for Jason Kessler, The RS were placed there by me and reverted piecemeal by Marek with no clear indication of what he was doing. In other words, Marek sandbagged me. In blocking me, Swarm appears to endorse Marek's obscurantism. Swarm was so quick to block me that I was unable to respond to Marek's block request and Swarm was unable to hear both sides of the story. What a pitiful display. Spem Reduxit (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Request doesn't address the reason for the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:44, 25 August 2017 (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.

As the template states, this block has nothing to do with the content issue. It's a standard Three Revert Rule block, and you were informed of this bright-line rule in advance. Your unblock request, as is, is not going to be successful. Now is not the time to tell us how "right" you are. You need to read the unblock guide and submit a request that complies with that, as well as WP:EW. Swarm ♠ 04:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And, just so we're clear, no, VM did not violate the 3RR. Swarm ♠ 04:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of Croplife v Toronto

The article Croplife v Toronto has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable lower-tier appellate court case. Two of the cited sources don't mention the case; the third offers only a one-paragraph description. A web search reveals no substantive discussion of the case or its impact. In sum, there is no indication that this case is significant enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. /wiae /tlk 19:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Emile Leborgne

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

No indication that Emile Leborgne is notable, and the page is a WP:COATRACK promoting an apparently equally non-notable company. No reliable third-party sources; even if Leborgne is notable the page would need to be rewritten in its entirety.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Huon (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of CBC v New Brunswick AG for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CBC v New Brunswick AG 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/CBC v New Brunswick AG 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. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Locations of Roland statues has been nominated for deletion

Category:Locations of Roland statues 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Dolinger, The German Hansa, Kröner 2012, page 359

[1]