User talk:Pohick2

Please read this box first! Welcome to my talk page! Questions, information, warnings? Say it here! Please post new topics at the bottom of this page, please sign your topic by placing ~~~~ (four tildes) at the very end, and please remember, assume good faith! You can click here to start a new topic.

Archives

User talk:Pohick2/Archive/

Hello, Pohick2, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Onorem♠Dil 00:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF:

2 The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.;

3 The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)"...

"For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc, always qualify under Criterion 2

Edwards Deming:

That's all window dressing. That's not fundamental. That's not getting at change and the transformation that must take place. Sure we have to solve problems. Certainly stamp out the fire. Stamp out the fire and get nowhere. Stamp out the fires puts us back to where we were in the first place. Taking action on the basis of results without theory of knowledge, without theory of variation, without knowledge about a system. Anything goes wrong, do something about it, overreacting; acting without knowledge, the effect is to make things worse. With the best of intentions and best efforts, managing by results is, in effect, exactly the same, as Dr. Myron Tribus put it, while driving your automobile, keeping your eye on the rear view mirror, what would happen? And that's what management by results is, keeping your eye on results.

Robert Horning:

Still, what I hate even more is if I'm part way through some side project that I know will take some time to complete, and then some eager-beaver editor not only undoes that whole project but throws up a RfD, kills off the whole thing, and then leaves a rude message (if I'm lucky) on my user talk page. At the very least, this constant rush on decision making is one of the things that is such a turn-off for me on Wikipedia that I rarely even engage in policy decisions any more and certainly don't make any extra effort to see what is going on... as it seems as though my humble opinion on the matter will be treated as irrelevant. That is a turn-off and something that does drive editors away from the project.

Proctor:

I'm an MD, PhD --- Provable, naturally. I have had the same experience. Worse, when I have tried to merely defend edits, I get accused of tendentious editing, unwikilike behaviors, etc. This is even though I try strenuously to avoid such by (e.g.) posting only to the discussion page when any issue emerges. Worse, I have experienced really bad behavior from admins-- overt bullying, unjustified threats to ban, etc. merely for disagreeing. Almost as if were actively trying to drive off anyone who has expert knowledge. One admin even participated in forbidden wp:canvasing by another editor, rather than admonishing him about it. All totally against the rules, naturally. I don't mind playing by the wikipedia rules. But everyone, especially admins, should be required to do the same.

catherine yronwode:

The "democratic experiment" inherent in WP is going to contiue to run its full and entropic course. Like Usenet, and like the ODP/DMOZ, Wikipedia has peaked as a social network for intellectuals and is on the downward slide. Bandwidth is now so cheap that any author worth his or her salt can create a relevant domain name and host essays and topical articles that will easily be found by google's search engine. Why would any writer donate writing to WP, where writing is called 'editing" and bozos can abort an entire page and admins can "own" a topic and destroy content at whim?

Elisabeth Bauer, "Elian":

How can people possibly be so stupid? In the past, there were more crackpots and outsiders, I felt comfortable with them. The people now come at you with a list of house rules. We often just established rules quickly, without giving them a lot of thought. It seems strange to see how some people today are beating themselves up over things that you yourself simply wrote down at some point. It's sometimes astonishing, how young they are, Many of the people who display such atrocious behavior in the discussion forums are actually alarmingly nice in person, [17]

Southpark:

Specifically, you are warned against prolonged discussions with administrators. The cost of each reply increases exponentially. Those who are bent on this behavior, can easily lose their entire fortune. In the event of bankruptcy, the player must begin again as a new character from scratch. Considerate and loving admins try to prevent this by responding to easy rejoinders, and remaining silent to more ruinous replies. [18]

User:DGG:

It's right that our founder and the other long-term Wikipedians who started a project that that had inadequate standards should regret they did not insist on sourcing from the beginning--but their reaction is typical of those who try by harshness to make up for the sins of their childhood. What I think is truly harmful is anything that discourages new editors: the entire thrust of Wikipedia policy should be devoted to the encouragement of new people, , and the development of them into active and well-qualified editors, to replace the ones who will inevitably be leaving. This is done by helping the articles they write become good content. The proper reaction to an unsourced article is to source it, ideally by teaching the author how to do so, and impressing on them the need to do this in the future. What does not help is to remove it without doing everything feasible to see if it can be sourced, and if it can be considered important enough for the encyclopedia.

User:PHG:

Wikipedia was clearly created with the best of intentions, as an idealistic enterprise of volunteers wishing to compile the Knowledge of the World. In an intriguing parallel to the novel "Lord of the Flies" though, this idealism seems to have turned into a nightmare, where people keep fighting with each other, powerplays and conspirings run wild, mock tribunals are being set, vituperous bans are being issued, all in the name of the common good. This project has come to embody the conflicting impulses towards civilization (live by rules, peacefully and in harmony), and towards the will to power, as well as the tension between groupthink and individuality (Autodidacticism), between rational and emotional reactions. Just like people left to themselves on a paradisaic island, with raw human nature, soon take the lead to create a hellish environment: groupthink replaces objective truth; opinion replaces logic; repressive enforcement systems deny individual rights; predatory individuals are left free to libel. It would take an enlightened and powerful will to end the infighting; impose Order and Justice and establish the cool rule of Law, instead of community-organized arbitrariness and expediency...

User: Woonpton:

Amen sister! That is the overwhelming reason I stopped (in fact never really started except for an edit here or there) editing Wikipedia, although I keep hanging around and watching in hope that Wikipedia will get a clue and do something about the problem. But in the three years I've been watching, it's gotten worse, in fact much worse, rather than better. As a retired statistician (female) I find the premise of this thread insulting; several times last night I started to respond but decided I was too annoyed to respond calmly. I'm glad to see now that the thread has taken a somewhat better direction than the we need to make it easier for their inferior brains to grasp assumption it seemed to be based on initially. That attitude right there would be a secondary reason for an intelligent educated woman not to want to bother sticking around here. (BTW, I'm surprised no one seems to know where that 15% came from; if I'm not mistaken it came from that big anonymous survey of Wikipedia editors and readers that was done a year or two ago, with something over 100,000 Wikipedia editors responding, and if so, it's probably the most valid estimate available of participation by gender.) But no, believe me, it's not that it's too mentally challenging to edit Wikipedia that inhibits me. It's the toxic environment, the way editors with an agenda not only attempt to inject their particular ideology or theory or whatever into the content, but the way they go after anyone who is just trying to get the encyclopedia to neutrally reflect the consensus of reliable sources that I find most distressing and offputting. The disrespect shown to women here is a secondary concern. And yes, I did find that once I inadvertently let slip that I'm a woman, I started being treated with less respect and more contempt. Not by everyone, but by some.[19]

Hi Pohick, I've been asked to watch your talkpage and help manage any concerns you have after your block. Please let me know here if you do, and feel free to e-mail me if I don't respond in a timely manner. Dcoetzee 07:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello, given the statement that i'm not trusted, i can only come to the conclusion that nothing i could say or do would lift the block. agreed? i see the reasons for the block as follows:

1. while copyright is a laudatory goal, and i have tried and will try to comply, coming from inside the beltway near the sausage factory, i'm afraid i cannot share any special reverence for the law, or rules: rather, there must be an ethos or philosophy
2. zero defects; zero tolerance - i'm sorry i don't buy it
3. playing gotcha - while i admire the nice comparative analysis ex post facto, is there a set of tools for flagging potential copyright vios at preview? is there problem avoidance, rather than problem "fixing"? is there a process for tagging and editing away potential copyright vios in the heritage material? or rather is there recent edit flagging and warning? on the contrary, i see that we now have a "link spam" process making it harder to add links and references, while doing nothing about the quality of those links.
4. deletion of articles containing copyright vios. there would appear to be a policy of editing and deleting the minimum copyright vio material necessary while keeping the rest, and the ethos of "delete it all"
5. there would appear to be an attitude that non-compliance is willful, and by hectoring and punishing, we can change behavior - i'm sorry i don't buy it
6. conversing with admins who threatened to block me. Pohick2 (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, I think you would be unblocked if you expressed a sincere commitment to contributing content without copying and pasting non-free copyrighted material into Wikipedia (or copying with minor modifications). I more than anyone have little respect for the dominant copyright regime in the world, but it is essential that Wikipedia complies with it or the legal consequences for our content reusers could be severe. While I agree that much can be improved in our detection of copyright violations, the technology does not exist today to do it automatically due to the subtleties of fair use and the wide variety of unavailable offline sources; automatic link quality tools are also conceivable but do not exist today. These tools would be quite difficult to construct but represent an important future direction. The way in which copyvio articles are cleaned up varies - sometimes we work hard to remove the minimum content possible and even rewrite it, while other times due to a very large number of such articles this approach proves to require too much effort - the concern is removing the copyvio content in a timely manner. I don't know whether or not your violations are willful, but you were blocked because you continued to create clear copyright violations long after being warned - if it is not willful, you can consider this a preventative measure; the risk created by your contributions exceeds their value. One alternative that has worked for some editors in the past is an unblock in which they promise to avoid new prose contributions (for example, only doing editing/cleanup on existing articles, or adding references) - this might be a viable option for you. Let me know what you think and I'll get back to you. Dcoetzee 20:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we agree more than we disagree:

1. questioning of copyright law, while complying
2. improve copyright tools

however

1. given the extended analysis, i don't see the unblock happening
2. i don't see the risk. when you have copyright vios that are arguably against policy, but not the law -- but then you get to take less risk if you can stand the consequences
3. risk / value - a 100 to 1 positive to negative seems clear to me, this is not human rated spaceflight.
4. i kinda already did cleanup edits at unreferenced BLP
5. after the checkers speech, i'm afraid i have no faith in public contrition, including my own, i leave the private contrition for the confessional. Pohick2 (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a generous assumption to say that your edits are not against the law - I would characterize them as a clear derivative work that cannot be justified by fair use. In some ways our policy is stricter than the law, but this mainly regards images and is for other reasons (e.g. incentivizing the creation of free media, and avoiding copyright violation by reuse in other contexts). I didn't say that you would be unblocked for doing cleanup edits - I was suggesting that you commit to doing cleanup edits only for a little while, or else be re-blocked, as a way of enabling you to continue to ocntribute. As for contrition, I'm not worried about how you feel about the edits - I'm only worried in ensuring that in the future you don't contribute derivative works of non-free copyrighted works to Wikipedia, and a commitment to complying with this in the future would be helpful. Let me know if you want to consider it. Dcoetzee 17:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on the contrary it is established precedent. here is the fair use four factor test:

1. the purpose and character of use - non-profit educational use
2. nature of work - biographical essays freely available on the internet, not printed biographies, behind a pay wall
3. amount and substantiality of portion - less than 200 words
4. effect upon market or value of copyrighted work - by linking to original, enhances the value

therefore, we can conclude this is a matter of policy alone, not of the law. you are of course free to be more strict than the law, but there will be a downside to this. (and here i thought it was pusilanimous behavior before the plantiff's bar.) of course the four factor test (so typical of judges) is not easily programable to bots, hence the imperfect flagging of potential hits. given that an admin dosen't "trust" me, and that "good faith" assumptions don't apply, i can only conclude that no amount of "committment" would be enough. would you agree that such a conclusion is reasonable? Pohick2 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. However, to avoid collateral damage, efforts should be made when possible to verify infringement before removal."

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Pohick2

i see you have 2 out of 400 done, well done. Pohick2 (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you feel neglected. You're just one out of more than 40, I'm afraid, and not that high a priority for me. So far, nobody else has cared to review your content, but it'll get done eventually. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the offer remains open, i remain prepared to scrub, clean up the backlog (subject to your review). Pohick2 (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as a start List of Fellows of the Royal Society A,B,C; List of Fellows of the Royal Society D,E,F; List of Fellows of the Royal Society G,H,I; List of Fellows of the Royal Society J,K,L; List of Fellows of the Royal Society M,N,O; List of Fellows of the Royal Society P,Q,R; List of Fellows of the Royal Society S,T,U,V; List of Fellows of the Royal Society W,X,Y,Z these are all from the royal society pdf, which is in alphabetic order with bd dd; PD list of facts. list transformed by sorting out foreign fellows, paragraph by letter, link to bio articles. therefore not copyright vio. Plucas58 is disambiguating. Pohick2 (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• progress report - 7 copyright vio; 150 no copyright vio; 3298 to go Pohick2 (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• progress report - 6 copyright vio; 2 by others; 148 no copyright vio; 3298 to go Pohick2 (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

• Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
• Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
• Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
• Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

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

I can find no reliable sources fails wp:bio

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. Oo7565 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

astonishingly inept. i see prod taken done within a day. Pohick2 (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this out since you contributed to the article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor).Steve Dufour (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

another for the wall of shame, deleting a MacArthur? Pohick2 (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of notability, at least not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG or especially not enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics) orWP:ARTIST

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GrapedApe (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Buck Downs 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/Buck Downs 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 template from the top of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yu Liu 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/Yu Liu 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) 19:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lynn Chadwick (radio) 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/Lynn Chadwick (radio) 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. Fiddle Faddle 13:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability for biographies. The lack of 3rd party sources is fairly obvious. Possible conflict of interest also.

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. The Undead Never Die (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lynn Chadwick (radio) 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/Lynn Chadwick (radio) (2nd nomination) 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. The Undead Never Die (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article René de Chambrun 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/René de Chambrun 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. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 20:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article M. H. Holcroft 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/M. H. Holcroft 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. Gestrid (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article A. Robert Lee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ill-referenced promotional article created as part of 2Leaf Press cluster. Unlikely to meet WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR 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. David Gerard (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Community input is politely requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard ur expertise in gen. notability per wp:GNG & applicabilities of eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc. w/in AfD's
... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I learned about Luis Alberto Urrea from an interview on the radio. Then, like a couple thousand others, I looked him up on Wikipedia. He is a very interesting person, and his new book has generated new interviews with him, and added to his life story. I added to the article you started after finding some of the reviews and interviews about him and his new book. Sorry to see all this trouble you have had, being blocked. The only article I began was blocked for copyright violations because I took too many words from a review, in a block quote. I felt that sting! I kept cutting down the number of words until someone accepted the article. Now, I have put long blockquotes from reviews in other articles and no one deleted those articles. I was adding to articles that already existed. When I get time these days, I chop out the block quotes and make the quoted part far shorter. For today, for you, thanks. I have enjoyed learning more about Urrea, though I have not read any of his works yet. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Lerner (environmentalist) 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/Michael Lerner (environmentalist) 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. Daask (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Wilbur Award 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/Richard Wilbur Award 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. Edwardx (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War 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/Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War 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. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 20:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hilton Obenzinger 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/Hilton Obenzinger 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. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Murray (Australian writer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. ALso basically an unref blp.

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. Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kate Wheeler (novelist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Neither the article itself nor a WP:BEFORE search indicate that the subject passes WP:NBOOKS or WP:AUTHOR, despite a notability tag having been here for two years.

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. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Wesley Charles Jacobs Jr. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wesley Charles Jacobs Jr. 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/Wesley Charles Jacobs Jr. 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kathy Fagan 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/Kathy Fagan 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. A loose necktie (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pohick2. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Iowa Writers' Workshop people, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mbdfar (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert L. Jones 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/Robert L. Jones 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.

SL93 (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shrike (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unable to find sources indicative of notability either per WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Snider doesn't appear to meet the GNG, WP:NPOET, or any other relevant notability guideline. My WP:BEFORE search didn't find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources, and the award doesn't seem significant enough to establish notability under WP:ANYBIO #1 or the like.

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Svetoslav Ivanov 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/Svetoslav Ivanov until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

UtherSRG (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've put a lot of effort into this page, and I greatly respect that. However, shouldn't we have articles that have referenced material from at least more than one source? I'm concerned that our accuracy with this one is questionable BizzyBeeYouandMe (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I notice Khameesa Khan has been listed as father of Pathanay Khan. 1. I couldn't find any reference for this 2. The closest is a famous Pakistani singer called Khamiso Khan but he was himself born in 1923 and is only 3 years older than Pathanay Khan. 3. One can imagine it is not easy to find such information but it would be helpful Keamari (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Gehrke 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/Steve Gehrke until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Go Phightins! 14:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hester Kaplan 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/Hester Kaplan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]