User talk:Catamorphism

I watch any user talk pages I've commented on, so if I comment on your talk page, it's okay to respond there.

When commenting here, conciseness is a plus. I'm unlikely to read long, rambling comments that aren't particularly on-topic with respect to the article that's being discussed.

Archives:

I like you[edit]

I was just looking at some of your recent edits on Feminism. I have no complaints, I just want to tell you you're doing a great job improving that article. I'm currently involved in an argument/edit war with a ridiculously uncooperative editor (over mail-order bride) and it's so refreshing to see strong, neutral editing on a controversial topic. Please contact me if you ever need a third opinion in a dispute or something. --Grace 00:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The delation is not valid. The website deleted is an anti=feminist website under the heading that states websites that are opposed to feminism.

Thank you[edit]

I saw what you said on cisgender and I thank you. I have been trying to learn how to use wikipedia and I am still struggling, but I do know how to use a search engine. The first day that I had the words used on me I argued them on Talk:Voice feminization and was told that I was an idiot. The conversations on Talk:Voice feminization may not be useful for you to read, but they were useful as I calmly read what I could get and did more research and reading on what to do on WP. I was very tentative about taking out what AlexR put in, but everything I read said it was the right thing to do. Again, thank you.

FemVoice 19:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I was reading the information about you[edit]

I would love to discuss programming with you, but you are so far above me in knowledge that I am embarrased to even suggest that I could carry on an inteligent conversation.FemVoice 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Feminism[edit]

I was just making it a litle more interesting to read. --Street Scholar 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I add too much information and make it easy[edit]

Wow! Someone that actually will take what I say and look up the veiled reference. Yes, I have been doing research. I never expected you to actually look it up, but I should have known since you are doing a masters on usenet that you would understand. FemVoice 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying something about the where the word cisgender comes from[edit]

I want to argue because you are referencing a 'usenet article' but the way that you phrased it makes it very hard as you are giving it as a history of public use. And from what I recall, that is acceptable in general as you did it. I hope that you do not mind that I am removing from References, 'Carl Buijs', as it is not actually the original, but a personal web page that quoted a posting on usenet, and that is against Wikipedia policy on reliable references.FemVoice 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask you since you have been here longer than I[edit]

I am an observer, and on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-04 Cisgender I observed that my name was added as someone who was involved. Am I wrong in thinking that I should also add my comments into this page? My logic is that I should add them in because I am one of the parties involved.... But I don't know if that is correct or not?

What I do on my talk page[edit]

... is nobodys business but my own. And I will remove all references to this harassment in which you so happily participate. In case you are an admin, I would warn you not to block me myself, or you will have been an admin, since that would obviously not be proper behaviour. And why the heck should I let this BS stand there? As I said, solely my business. Maybe though you could have a word with your buddy FemVoice, who has removed lots of stuff from articles talk pages. But I guess this is a lesser crime. -- AlexR 12:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cisgender mediation[edit]

Hi, I'm entering at this point as a mediator as its obviously needed and I don't feel that the debate is getting anywhere. I've commented already and wasn't intending to step in, but I might as well. Are you and User:FemVoice ready to accept the presence of the definition of the cis(sex) terms in the cisgender article? I understand you questioning the terms as neologisms, have you ever come accross them at all outside wikipedia? Usrnme h8er 16:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since AlexR has chosen not to partake in the mediation, I'm going to have to consider the mediation to have reached a consensus... Do you feel that you and User:FemVoice can agree about page content on the talk page? Or do you want the mediation to remain open? --Usrnme h8er 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo[edit]

How's it going, my old wikipedia friend? Good to see we haven't had any disagreements recently. Interestingstuffadder 01:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex-positive feminism[edit]

On Ariel Levy addition: "POV (her critique is not more "nuanced" except according to people who like her work; etc." – Good call. I wanted to point out that Levy's criticisms were of a different nature than that of, say, Dworkin and MacKinnon, but the other information in the paragraph should sufficiently contextualize that. Iamcuriousblue 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emoticon[edit]

Thank you. I was wondering what to do next. My simply reverting again, even though the user who was vandalising is blocked, would somehow have felt sterile. Your rvv has heartened me. I accept the user's right to object on talk pages to what s/he dislikes, but not their right to censor. Fiddle Faddle 15:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 3rr[edit]

ok thanks for letting me know! 129.12.200.49 14:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William p. o'neill[edit]

Hi you incorrectly marked this article for speedy deletion with the db-bio template. The article does assert notability and so A7 is not applicable. Prod deleting is the correct method to use in this case. I suggest you have a read of this, if you have any questions regarding the deletion process then please ask me. --Wisd e n17 18:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Paglia[edit]

Catamorphism, I don't know who the hell you are and I don't care. Camille Paglia is not a "sex-positive feminist"?????? Are you fucking nuts?? Do you know anything at all about her or what you are talking about??

Before you maliciously vandalize this article again with your bigotry and arrogance, maybe you should do some research on the subject. And if you take her name out of the article again, I will simply reverse your action!!!! Two can play your game! Wikipedia will not be held hostage to cretins like you who need to distort and deny plain facts to suit your own Orwellian agendas!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs) 04:32, 17 July 2006

Changes at Template:User cal[edit]

Hello, we changed the settings for the Cal userbox to allow you to personalize the text. Please check out the talk page for more info. ~ trialsanderrors 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in adminship?[edit]

While I disagree with your politics and most of your views on social policy, I think you are a serious, educated, thoughtful contributor, and I agree with your Wikipedia philosophies. I think that you would be an excellent administrator. I think Wikipedia has too many admins whose main interests and contributions involve TV shows, video games, fancruft, cartoons, and topics that are clearly unencyclopedic. You work on serious, encyclopedic content. You've shown excellent judgment and knowledge of policy, and I think you can be neutral in spite of your strong feelings on certain social issues. I am also interested in sexual issues, primarily in fixing or deleting silly, frivolous, and unsourced sexual articles. There seems to be a tendency around here to throw out the red herring of censorship whenever one is trying to get rid of a stupid sexual neologism that belongs in Urban Dictionary, not here. I've seen you in all areas of Wikipedia, and I know you have the experience, and I don't doubt that your RfA would be successful. I'd like to work with you to get the sexual nonsense out of here and make Wikipedia a source of solid sexual information, firmly grounded in science and medicine rather than urban legend, teen gossip, and pornography. Please let me know what you think at your earliest convenience. BTW, Nice guy syndrome is currently at AfD, nominated by me, and is going down in flames with a unanimous consensus to delete. Many are voting to delete based on your well-argued vote in the last AfD. You may want to vote again, but it may not be necessary. Erik the Rude 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RfA has been created, and all you have to do is accept. Good luck on what I feel will be a wildly successful RfA. Erik the Rude 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I appreciate it! Catamorphism 15:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the energy/courage/insanity required to try to fight the fanatics at the various sex, orientation, and gender articles. However, from what I remember of you, you're probably better equipped than I to take on that juggernaut. Good luck, and if you ever need an advocate before the Arbitration Committee, let me know. Oh, and good luck on your RfA. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idle Curiousity About Pronoun Choice[edit]

Hey, Catamorphism. I posted your RfA for Erik. Had a quick question — and it's merely one of idle curiousity, so feel free not to respond. Noticed you recently wrote, "I am, indeed, a 'them' and not a 'her'." Obviously, thus, your preference of pronoun is important to you, and I'm just curious as to the reasons behind your choice/preference. If it relates to something you'd rather not discuss due to it being personal or something (especially on Wikipedia where EditsAre^UsuallyForever™), no problem, but figured I'd ask — I'm always in a learning mood. — Mike (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question on WP:RfA[edit]

Just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've offered up an additional optional question to hopefully clarify your position, in light of a few oppose votes you're getting. — Mike (talk • contribs) 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed User:Jaiwills from WP:PAIN[edit]

Hi Catamorphism,

I removed your report on WP:PAIN about User:Jaiwills. I warned Jaiwills about uncivil comments (it wasn't really a personal attack). I'm keeping him/her on my watchlist, and if there are further incidents I'm prepared to take swift action. Best, Gwernol 15:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More pronoun fun[edit]

Hi Catamorphism,

I happened across your RfA, found much to admire, and find our views on many matters are similar. I did want to drop a quick note regarding your pronoun of choice, though. While I respect your choice, regularly referring to any single person as "they" would give me a really bad headache -- I'm the child of an English teacher, and little subject-verb agreement demons are always dancing inside my skull. At the same time, being human, I'd rather not type out your username in full whenever I mention you more than once. As a third option for dunces like me with our own grammar hangups, have you ever considered ze or another modernly-coined alternative? Best wishes, Xoloz 00:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Words of support?" It is simply the truth: with the limited exception of the basic act of sexual reproduction (not yet fully overcome by science), gender is an optional social variable akin to race, free for any person to embrace or ignore as she, he, or ze chooses. Believe me, although I am reasonably contented as a male, being a dark-skinned fatso in a wheelchair allows me to see the evils of the heteronormative, gender-binarist aesthetic, among other things. Should you experience any intolerance here, I will gladly assist as best I can: do let me know. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not me[edit]

That person is definitely not me. But thank you for bringing it to my attention. I am willing to consider you doing this for me to be an olive branch. Interestingstuffadder 05:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Gayle Rubin; Roger Graef; Terence McKenna (film producer); Intermediate language; Boys Don't Cry (film); Gate of Flesh; Reproductive rights; Super-Toys Last All Summer Long; Off the Map; Monosexism; The Chronicle of Higher Education; Me You Them; Postmodern feminism; Sidney Franklin; Streetheart; Judith Halberstam; Pansexual; Carol Gilligan; Transitioning (transgender)

Cleanup: Royston Tan; Choice and sexual orientation; Homosexuality and religion
Merge: Crab Key; Divide and conquer algorithm; Robot fetishism
Add Sources: Transphobia; Testosterone; Brick tinting
Wikify: Callum Stewart; The Ubin Twinz; Giambattista Vico
Expand: Simon Wells; Homosexuality and Buddhism; The Dawn Rider

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up[edit]

If you need any further support from me at your RfA, let me know, but it looks like it will pass with no problem. I don't want to make it look like I'm doing any special pleading on your part. FYI, before I started using this account exclusively, I was a user that had a sort of argument with you on the Talk:Oral sex article, got extremely pissed off at you, and vowed that if anyone ever nominated you for admin, I'd do what I could to shoot it down. Well, I've mellowed, changed, started afresh, and realized that while you do have opinions that I consider (no offense intended) absolutely loony, I know that you will do an excellent job of enforcing policy as it is. I also think that you are desperately needed to combat the ever-growing threat of puerile sexual dicdefs and sexual urban legends that certain "pop culture" lovers raise a goddawful hue and cry over if they see them on AfD, an overreaction second only to a Trekker seeing a piece of Trek fancruft there. I think some of those folks on your RfA are being absolute shits, and you and I and they know who they are. I just hope their rantings will be overlooked by the closing bureaucrat. Also the "assume good faith" debate is ridiculous. You've already said you'll enforce the policy. What do they want? A self-confession like those Communist Party meetings they used to have in Laos as depicted in The Killing Fields, after which they take you out back and shoot you? I personally think WP:AGF is a decent idea that has been taken to ludicrous lengths. If you know somebody's being a total fuckhead, you shouldn't have to pretend for very long that they're not being a total fuckhead. You shouldn't have to leave your rational thought at the door when you enter Wikipedia. Erik the Rude 15:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Another Question to Your RfA[edit]

Of course, all user-added questions are entirely optional. But hopefully this will allow you to make a definitive, centralized statement regarding the scattershots on the question going on, which might help sway future votes. Dunno. — Mike 08:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a follow-up on this, 'cause I feel it needs to be said: I wasn't wild about asking that question, but I figured it might offer you the opportunity to pre-emptively address the concerns prior to future oppose votes. I don't think the question should, in a perfect world, have needed to be asked, but I felt its asking might, in this particular situation, be of benefit and not detriment to you in the long run. — Mike 02:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have asked you a question on your Rfa. I am on the fence, and I need to ask this question because it may change my vote from oppose to, at minimum, neutral. Thanks and have a groozy day! TruthCrusader 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl necklace (sexuality)[edit]

This is up for deletion, and it looks like it may be kept. It's ridiculous. Please take a look. Magister Erik the Rude 01:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited :)[edit]

Please accept this invite to join the new WikiProject Bodybuilding, a WikiProject dedicated to improving bodybuilding related articles. Simply click here to accept! Addbot (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Airs AfD[edit]

I nominated "Kim Airs" as an article for deletion before seeing your edits. I'm still not sure if I think Airs is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, so I didn't remove the AfD. I invite you to weigh in on the AfD, and if I'm mistaken about her notability, I'm open to changing my mind on the subject. Iamcuriousblue 03:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably off-topic for the actual AFD.... Grand Opening! is still going as an online-only operation. I vaguely remember seeing something in the Phoenix or the Weekly Dig where Kim Airs basically said she was sick of the day-to-day of keeping a retail storefront open. FreplySpang 15:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:)[edit]

Beat me to it! — Mike 18:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply find it nigh impossible to believe ...[edit]

I can only extend my deepest of regrets on how your RfA concluded. Could you have been trusted with the wikimop and bucket? Easily. This entire affair has given me great pause as to how Wikipedia's administrator nomination process functions. I simply cannot believe that someone with your caliber of contributions and devotion to the project was not the easiest of shoo-ins. This should simply not have happened in the manner it did. My regret cannot find adequate words, partially because I find myself somewhat stunned. — Mike 16:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do ever choose to run again, please let me know. I'll be there. — Mike 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I won't. This really was the straw that broke the camel's back, and I'm so very disgusted with my fellow editors that I've left Wikipedia. If I ever change my mind, I'll come back under a different username as a fresh start (were I ever to be that dumb again, it'd of course not be sockpuppetry, but a corollary of m:Right to vanish, I imagine). Good luck with your future edits, but I seriously suggest you question whether this community is worth the long-term investment. No need to reply, as my talk page's been deleted. — Mike 17:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regrets re: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Catamorphism[edit]

I'd also like to send regrets regarding the above. I was saddened to see it go down as it did. I've been a silent fan of your work on music articles for a while and certainly had (and still have) the impression that you are a strong defender the NPOV in some more sensitive areas where many of us rarely tread. I'm sure you'll keep up the good work despite this.

If you go for this again I'll absolutely support you again. To succeed, however, you will of course need to give some thought to the various statements of your detractors. I respect your desire to identify yourself as you please and wish more people did so. That said, I must realize that many see the world in a very binary sort of way, confess that the non-standard English rolls poorly off of my tongue and state that for myself, it would only be amusing if someone were to ignore the "Mr" in my name and refer to me as "she."

Take it easy. -MrFizyx 16:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree that the focus of the RfA was all wrong, but some (not all) of these people are normally good editors. So it may be worth trying to understand how and why they were distracted in a rather foolish way. Why did some perceive you as being agressive? I don't see you that way and I don't think that was your intention. Ah well, these are just my opinions do with them as you please. -MrFizyx 17:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thoughts re: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Catamorphism[edit]

Although I opposed your nomination, I want you to know that I respect the high quality contributions you make to the encyclopedia. Perhaps I put too much weight on you offending me in the past and instead should have focused on these quality contributions but, to be honest, I just couldn't completely get the taste of those past experiences out of my mouth. However, I want you to know that I was personally offended by the fact that an issue was made of your gender identity. To whatever extent the debate over the "they" issue contributed to your request for adminship's denial, I am ashamed that my own opposition to your candidacy assisted the intolerant and narrow-minded bunch who raised the issue as a basis for opposing you. Hopefully when we cross paths in the future the spirit will be collaborative, collegial and civil and, should you be nominated for adminship in the future, I will be able to support your candidacy. Interestingstuffadder 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA[edit]

I am truly sorry that you had to go through all that. -- Samir धर्म 20:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant about the nominator's breakdown and about the spurious comments that others made about gender related issues. Both of those were in very poor taste -- Samir धर्म 21:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I'm astounded that some would express awareness of your preference and choose a different pronoun within a single post. I though you handled yourself quite well, though, particularly in the comments section. Notwithstanding, next time — and I hope there is one — it might be best to go ahead and let people oppose you for having brown hair. Those kinds of comments speak for themselves, if you ask me. All the best. ×Meegs 03:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to add my regret that your RFA unfolded as it did. I supported you, and I think you would have made a fine administrator. If you like, e-mail me and I can share some thoughts on why I think this really happened. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add my expression of sympathy. I thought you were badly treated at your recent RfA and I want you to know you have a lot of supporters out here. Keep making valuable contributions to Wikipedia and try for adminship again when you're ready to. I'll be there to support you. Wishing you all the best, Gwernol 21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if and when you stand for adminship again; I would support you again in the future, as I think you were the victim of bad fortune on many levels this time around. While there was some good constructive criticism and advice in there, the level of sound and fury was ... deafening. -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that RFA turned into a mudbath for you. Let me know if you are ever up for it again, my support still stands - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions about gender correction and userboxen[edit]

First I'm very sorry about how your RfA went down. I will be happy to support you in the future should you decide to run again. I do have a few suggestions toward that end. For correcting users about your preferred gender pronoun, you might consider creating a user subpage with a few short paragraphs explaining why you prefer to be called "they" and so forth. I was thinking something similar to User:Raul654/protection, that you could just link to: "I prefer to be referred to with the singular they. Please see User:Catamorphism/gender pronoun." Besides efficiency, the big advantage I see in this is that you can easily direct editors who have exhausted your patience to a very polite and informative user page, instead of expending extra energy on arguing about it every time.

The other suggestion I thought of was rearranging userboxes on your page such that WP-related ones occupy the top spot, like at User:Y0u. Now that I look at the RfA, there doesn't seem to be much objecting to that, but userboxes further down, so maybe it won't make any difference. I dunno.--Kchase T 05:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA explanation[edit]

Hello, Catamorphism. I'd like to offer a couple thoughts on your recent RFA and explain the reasoning behind my vote. First, I couldn't help but notice your comment on User talk:Samir (The Scope): "...should an editor be judged on how they respond to comments that should never have been made in the first place?". My response is absolutely. Wikipedia users all receive uncivil or inappropriate comments from time to time, but administrators really get a lot of rude, sometimes shocking, comments. (See my talk page archives for some examples.) In my opinion, a good administrator must be able to respond clearly and courteously, even to those who don't treat him the same. Second, on userboxes, we obviously disagree; you didn't seem to have questions about this but I'd be happy to explain. Finally, "the pronoun". It doesn't matter to me what gender you feel you are; male, female, both, neither, or whatever. It's really irrelevant. But for the record, I find using the singular "they" awkward, and try to avoid it. I don't intend to use any neologisms, and using your username all the time is awkward as well. I'd have no problem if you had a polite message on your userpage explaining your preferred manner of address, or if you explained to people who were confused. But what really got to me were comments like these: "For me, it's a matter of basic civility. (Thus, I find it disrespectful for you to refer to me as "him" when I am not a man.)"; that crossed the line from having a preferred style of address to making demands on how others should address you, going outside standard conventions of English. I was later reconsidering my vote, but what really irked me was how you turned opposition over these demands into discrimination against your gender. You don't have to reply, and I don't wish to be rude or insulting. I just wanted to explain how people can be comfortable with your self-identity and think you're a good editor, but still disapprove of your insistence on an idiosyncratic form of address, and how obession over this can lead people to think you might not make a good administrator. I hope matters work out differently the next time you're nominated to become an administrator. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ze is a neologism and does not appear in my dictionary. He, on the other hand can be "used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified", which is how I and many other people use it. It is certainly possible that some people opposed due to lack of comfort with your gender, but dismissing everyone's concerns as "transphobia", like playing the race card, led me at least to remain opposed to your candidacy. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; he shouldn't be used when the subject is obviously female (of course, I don't think they works there either, and ze just sounds silly). but you're right about being able to ask people to address you the way you wish, and I'm sorry I wasn't clear. My objection, and that of several others, was that you suggested that people were incivil or disrespectful if they didn't want to use a special, nonstandard term when addressing you. I'm not trying to convince you that that sort of intolerance is bad, nor do I wish to prolong this discussion; it's just that you seemed mystified by people's opposition and I wanted to suggest why so many people disapproved of that behavior. I understand your frustration with English not having a proper gender-neutral pronoun. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact me[edit]

Please contact me via email at your earliest opportunity. It is rather somewhat important. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... conform to the usage of the bearer[edit]

Some thoughts...

A long time ago I read some good advice about pronouncing people's names (interesting to me at least, having a last name easily and unwarrantedly misspelled, and mispronounced to boot) Why it might have even been Miss Manners. The exact quote will not come to mind but the essential part was

"... conform to the usage of the bearer."

So, if I first read about someone with the name "Roache Mays", and he then walks up and introduces himself as 'Rocky', well then that's what he is (even though at my best I'd'a been thinking Roche=Rohsh, and more probably "roach?")

And thinking further, the bitter-sweet tale of Abigail and Abigail-II comes to mind. When I understood that he "... is a 6'5 Dutch male ..." I didn't bat an eye, considering his powerful reputation in that community. I just mentally translated that into "Abigail Van Buren" - another guide to the clueless. He's still not explained his reasons for the name, and only the less socially clue'd cared ... or persisted in saying 'she'. Unfortunately, the socially clueless (and computationally clueless, too) finally got to him. The sheer number of people mistaking gruffness for 'impoliteness' took its toll, and he left a community he'd helped greatly. Many of us still miss him.

Now, a couple years later in the same community we have another luminary by dint of effort, Autrijus Tang. Note the new page name. The reaction has been, and should be, "Oh, okay, then that is what she wants... done." What does the name or sex have to do with the worth of a person?

And that leads into perhaps a small bit of ambiguity, from a most hierarchial society, that might amuse you. In written Chinese it is not surprising that the characters for he, she, and it are different, though not greatly. (Don't know if you'll be able to see these - 他(he) 她(she) 它(it)) But the strange thing is, they are pronounced exactly the same - 'ta'. Even the same 'tone', at least in Mandarin.

In spoken Chinese the context of the conversation is very important, otherwise 'ta' and a lot of other words would get confusing! And I'd like to think that you are doing your part to alleviate confusion, well, maybe. Picture this, somebody talking about meeting you and two of your friends. And then they can talk about what she said, and what he said, and what they said, ... oh, well, maybe not. ;-)

Anyway, as long as you don't jump down someone's throat at their initial assumption, I just don't see a problem if you simply say "I'd prefer you use ___". What else would non-adherence be, but rude (or {sigh} clueless)?

I hope you come back. Shenme 09:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

little poem[edit]

Removed lyrics to The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air TV Show theme song per WP:COPYVIO. -MrFizyx 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some IP signed with my signature. No idea. Anyway, hope you'll be back, someday.--Kchase T 11:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kate Campbell.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kate Campbell.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 03:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Shawncolvin.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Shawncolvin.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bigr Tex 16:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shawncolvin.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Shawncolvin.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bigr Tex 16:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beth_Amsel.jpg[edit]

I have tagged Image:Beth_Amsel.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. MER-C 09:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franke1low.jpg[edit]

I have tagged Image:Franke1low.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Four bitchin babes.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Four bitchin babes.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Houserabbitsociety.gif, Image:Kris Delmhorst.jpg, Image:Chuck Brodsky.jpg, and Image:Lui Collins.jpg too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbar[edit]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Userbar, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Geltman[edit]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Laurie Geltman, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Barcelona (band)[edit]

A tag has been placed on Barcelona (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Band de Soleil[edit]

A tag has been placed on Band de Soleil requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Firestorm (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Band de Soleil[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Band de Soleil, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Band released one album under an indy label in 1994. No awards, no fame, nothing to indicate that the band meets WP:MUSIC.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Firestorm (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Cormac McCarthy (musician)[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Cormac McCarthy (musician), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Cormac McCarthy (musician) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Cormac McCarthy (musician), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Catamorphism! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 6 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 938 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Lui Collins - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Mary Gauthier - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Peter Keane - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Eric Albert - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Ratsy - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Erica Wheeler - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Eric Albert[edit]

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Gigs (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Acoustic music[edit]

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ridernyc (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Monique Ortiz[edit]

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ^Bongo_matic 14:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Bourbon Princess[edit]

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ^Bongo_matic 14:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Judith Edelman[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability of person by independent sources.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Belasd (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lisa McCormick (singer/songwriter)[edit]

The article Lisa McCormick (singer/songwriter) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability, but article is too old for a BLP PROD.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kansan (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Kittens.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Kittens.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above only refers to a certain (most recent at the time of tagging) image you had uploaded over an existing image at the same filename that was uploaded by someone else and that did not have source/licensing inconsistencies. DMacks (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article notability notification[edit]

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Ellen James Society, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Ellen James Society" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 01:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article notability notification[edit]

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Cooper Seay, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Cooper Seay" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 02:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article notability notification[edit]

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Viva la Diva (band), has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Viva la Diva (band)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 02:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kate Campbell for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kate Campbell 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/Kate Campbell 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. Rklawton (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Linda Sharar for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Linda Sharar 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/Linda Sharar 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. Michig (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cormac McCarthy (musician) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cormac McCarthy (musician) 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/Cormac McCarthy (musician) 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.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Laurie Geltman for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Laurie Geltman 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/Laurie Geltman 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.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearded oyster listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bearded oyster. Since you had some involvement with the Bearded oyster redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 189.106.232.100 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Colleen Sexton[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rebecca Riots (band)[edit]

The article Rebecca Riots (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability per WP:BAND, and mostly unreferenced. Articles claims that they supported some notable bands at festivals, but I can't find significant coverage of them online in WP:Reliable sources.

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. Uncle Roy (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Karaugh Brown[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and appears to be WP:SPIP.

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. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Danielle Howle[edit]

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

WP:G11

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. Marquardtika (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion nominations[edit]

Hi Catamorphism!

I'm letting you know that I have nominated the following articles you created for deletion per WP:PROD:

The concern is: Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rebecca Riots (band) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rebecca Riots (band) 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/Rebecca Riots (band) 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. SITH (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ed's Redeeming Qualities for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ed's Redeeming Qualities 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/Ed's Redeeming Qualities 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.