User talk:Ombudsman
File:UncleMoo.jpg listed for deletion[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:UncleMoo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 16:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Death of Philip Gale for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Philip Gale until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Scott Mac 01:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hosting link to blacklisted website[edit]
Why are you still providing a blacklisted link on your userpage? (w-hale.to) -- Brangifer (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also, I noticed that you link to "Deadly Immunity", Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s antivaccine piece published on Salon.com. Salon has retracted that article and deleted it from its website, in response to increasing appreciation of the flawed and (in some cases) outright fraudulent science underlying its claims ([1]) I'm letting you know in case you want to update your userpage to reflect the retraction of the article. MastCell Talk 20:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Better source request for File:Newfreedomcommission.gif[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Newfreedomcommission.gif. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
WikiProject Walking[edit]
Ombudsman - I have noticed that you have contributed to the List of people who have walked across the United States, and cordially invite you to participate in a new WikiProject Walking that I have proposed. Your support for the project, active or passive, would be appreciated. Bezza84 (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The article Buffalo Chips Running Club has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Article appears to be self-promotion, and has been tagged as not meeting WP's notability requirements since 12/2007. No secondary reliable sources have been added to the article since being tagged. Refer to Wikipedia's Notability guidelines to determine if the subject of this article is notable. Please remove this tag ONLY if providing reliable sources as references, the article is long overdue for valid citations.
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. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Bwindi gorilla [edit]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bwindi gorilla , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. DrJimothyCatface (talk) 05:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of MedicoLegal Investigations Ltd[edit]
A tag has been placed on MedicoLegal Investigations Ltd, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mtking (edits) 21:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest getting more references - ones that are accessible, unlike that Times one. I'm not going to join up (even from £1) to verify things. It's not compulsory to be accessible, but in the case of combating speedy deletion, it does help. Peridon (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of MedicoLegal Investigations Ltd for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MedicoLegal Investigations Ltd until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mtking (edits) 08:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
creating an article on the Brain[edit]
The pattern matching Brain theory developed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnatpatom seems useful. I am brother of the inventor and note you have created a page on a like issue before. It isn't new research. It is a validated methodology with profound implications. Any advice/tips about starting an appropriate article? DDB (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ombudsman! I know it's a long time ago, but you created Neural clique. It badly needs sources. Would it be possible for you to provide them? Kind regards! Lova Falk talk 09:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Newfreedomcommission.gif missing description details[edit]
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Craft International[edit]
Howdy. i just wanted to call your attention to Craft International. I've nominated it for deletion, but more importantly, I've removed the claim you entered regarding the conspiracy theory surrounding their supposed presence at the Marathon bombings. I assume you weren't aware of this being a conspiratorial point of view, and perhaps were unaware of the Washington Times community page being a blog anyone can sign up for, but I just wanted to give you the heads up about the deletion and removal. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Howdy? Are you not aware of the fact that the FBI was all over suspect one for years and years, and Russian intelligence sought cooperation with the FBI both before and after suspect one's travels to strife torn nether regions of the former USSR? Are you aware that analysis of terrorism by Mother Jones[2] and the NY Times[3] has demonstrated FBI complicity in 80% or more of terror plots that have been carried out in recent years? The salient issue here is the degree of notability that should be applied to the mercenaries dressed in Craft uniforms, well corroborated pictures of which have now saturated virtually all areas of the media,[4] at least beyond the walled garden of the tightly controlled mainstream press. The Washington Times would have pulled these pictures instantly if there was any hint of the type of photoshopping allegations that have plagued attempts to legitimize the citizenship of current occupant in the White House.[5] These photos are everywhere, and there are no credible sources that back up your mistaken assertion that the suspicious gang of Craft clad mercenaries might not meet the Wiki's notability standards. To quote Jon Rappoport, "You look at photos of men standing near the Marathon finish line, the men in identical uniforms, who have variously been described as Navy Seals, Coast Guard, and Craft International security personnel. What were they doing there? Running a drill? Watching suspects or patsies or bomb-planters? What was going on?"[6] These issues 'trending' throughout cyberspace have reached a crescendo against the backdrop of mounting blowback against US drone strikes and military encroachment across the Middle East and Africa, and yet you audaciously hope to whitewash the serious questions about these photographs with tendentious terminology, just because the FBI emphatically pronounces that photographs of any other suspects will not be deemed credible? ""The photos and videos are posted for the public and media to use, review, and publicize. For clarity, these images should be the only ones and I emphasize the only ones the public should view to assist us," DesLauriers said. "Other photos should not be deemed credible and they unnecessarily divert the public's attention in the wrong direction and create undue work for vital law enforcement resources.""[7] Well, thanks for your opinion, Thargor. Peace out. Ombudsman (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 1[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jim Hunt (coach), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cross-country and Athletics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)[edit]
 | The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit) Research tools and services Outreach Get involved  ...Support Open Access...  |
Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!
If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)
Nomination of Elliot Valenstein for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliot Valenstein 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. --Forward Unto Dawn 12:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SafeMinds 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. Jinkinson (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Thomas Burbacher for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Burbacher 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. Jinkinson (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Mady Hornig for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mady Hornig 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. Jinkinson talk to me 03:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The article Richard Kunin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Does not meet criteria for notability.
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. LT90001 (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Richard Kunin for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Kunin 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. LT90001 (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Autism Research Institute for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autism Research Institute 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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Invitation: WikiProject Autism[edit]
Greetings! Since I found your name on the Notice board for autism-related topics, I figured you might be interested in the recently created WikiProject Autism. Muffinator (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 | |
| Wikipedia ads | file info – #251 |
Ombudsman, I am a new user. What is the deal with Vaccine Controversies. Not to be paranoid, but it is like Pharma is paying people to own that page. I tried to get Miller's info on IMR vs vaccination. The discussion is now on WP:RSN. Dcrsmama (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you![edit]
|
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia articles about health organizations. I like for organizations to be under wiki-watch. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC) |
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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of David Singer (chiropractor) for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Singer (chiropractor) 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. Delta13C (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Give Something Back[edit]
A tag has been placed on Give Something Back requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
- disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
- disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Emotionalllama (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Brian Hooker (bioengineer) for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Hooker (bioengineer) 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. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Richard Kunin for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Kunin (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. Delta13C (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of NonProfits' United for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NonProfits' United 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. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Ombudsman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The article Kevin Sweeney (consultant) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. SL93 (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Ombudsman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Kevin Sweeney (consultant) for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Sweeney (consultant) 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. Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The article Tamalpa Runners has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Notability.
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. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Kevin Sweeney (consultant)[edit]
Hello, Ombudsman. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kevin Sweeney".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 14:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The article First Databank has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.
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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Proposed Speedy Deletion on page you created[edit]
Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Template index/Speedy deletion[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Template index/Speedy deletion, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
DS alert[edit]
(The DS alert that was here was deleted by Ombudsman. -- Valjean (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC))
This is related to your edit at Judy Mikovits and your edit at your stub article Plague of Corruption. That book is written by advocates of discredited and pseudoscientific ideas, and content from RS that is critical must be included in such articles. Attempts to whitewash such content is not allowed and can be seen as a violation of NPOV and as forbidden advocacy of fringe ideas not supported by scientific evidence and RS. -- Valjean (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- To put it mildly, your wholesale hogwashing of the Plague of Corruption article goes beyond the pale. To add insult to the injury you've inflicted upon the article, the above indicates you have little in the way of constructive inclinations in the area of collaborative editing, the basis upon which many of us early, constructive contributors based our decisions to lend efforts. Rather, you have taken an overtly aggressive, uncooperative stance from the get go. This type of harassment is not only unjustified, it is undignified, and reflects poorly not only upon yourself, but upon the Wiki as a whole. If you would, please, get off your pedestal for a moment and consider that not only have I taken about a decade off as a 'breather', but you have come along, all high and mighty, and renewed the sort of harassment that has exemplified the descent of the Wiki into an acutely biased, unmitigated factory of dominant narrative tripe. Now that you have poisoned the well with your own op-ed insinuations, innuendo, and character assassination pejoratives as a substitute for my good faith article submission, you might want to consider where the high road might take you from here. May I suggest that you recuse yourself from any sort of admin role while others arrive on the article page to make constructive, rather than obstructive, edits, at least until the initial article iterations have progressed beyond the stub phase? Ombudsman 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- These kind of personal attacks are unacceptable. I would also like to remind you that you are subject to a permanent topic ban from editing articles related to autism or vaccination, and creating an article about a book written by anti-vaxxers, and which discusses these topics and includes anti-vaccination quotes, is a violation of that ban. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Ombudsman, I see you were permanently banned from the topics of vaccination and autism in January 2009, and I can't find any record of that ban having been lifted. The article Plague of Corruption is clearly related to both autism and vaccination. The ban was a long time ago, so it might be reasonable to assume you have forgotten it - or it might have been lifted and I have failed to find that. But now that you have been reminded, please either show us where and when the ban was lifted, or keep away from those subject areas. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions, pseudoscience and fringe science[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
- The subjects of "Plague of Corruption" and Judy Mikovits fall under these discretionary sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Blocked[edit]
You are now blocked for 72 hours for violating the terms of your topic ban. The ban notification says you are "banned permanently from all pages relating to vaccinations and autism. This ban includes talk pages, templates, categories, and images as well as articles". Earlier today, I told you "The article Plague of Corruption is clearly related to both autism and vaccination. The ban was a long time ago, so it might be reasonable to assume you have forgotten it - or it might have been lifted and I have failed to find that. But now that you have been reminded, please either show us where and when the ban was lifted, or keep away from those subject areas". You have not demonstrated that your ban has been lifted, but have still edited at Talk:Plague of Corruption. If you wish to be unblocked, please either demonstrate where your topic ban was lifted, or make a convincing commitment to adhere to it. If you do neither and carry on editing the same subject once this block expires, you will be blocked indefinitely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- For further information, your topic ban originated here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
>WTH?!? The above recalls previous a previous allegation of 'tedentious editing'. After taking basically a decade's breather from the Wiki, this sort of meddling is at once not surprising, given the devolution of this here Wiki into a pov artistry sinkhole, and yet simultaneously it takes one aback, miffed by the startling abrasiveness and abusiveness that now seems to pass for the current arrogant nature of your evident 'standard operating procedures. Too, it appears someone has edited my comments on the Plague of Corruption' talk page. Rather than just trying to work with me, a passage has just been summarily removed, prior to any chance being allowed for me to tweak the oh, so mild, clearly unintended transgression. Simply replacing the 'artists' with the more politically tolerable 'artistry' ought to suffice, if you can fathom that sort of deference, ever so kindly. In any case, you are talking about a decade old warning that, if memory serves, was only to remain in effect for 3 months. If I'm wrong about the original wording and restrictions, or otherwise, please find and point out the specifics. Lacking such, as I believe you'll find, you ought well rescind this apparently and simply harsh, punitive, juvenile, reactionary over reaction. Even if your interpretation of the 'ancient' finding proves valid, this sort of over-wrought over-reaction is hardly conducive to promotion of the ideals behind 'good faith' assumptions. If y'all wish to continue along the path downward through the sinkhole this Wiki has sunk into, that's on you. In any case, this tempest in a teapot seems simply designed to censor both myself and the invaluable contributions of Judy, Kent and all the rest of us who wish to to pursue conveyance truth and knowledge, despite the sort of heavy handed Orwellianism evident here, on the book article page, and elsewhere... Ombudsman 21 May 2020 (UTC)
>Aha, found the 2009 edit specifying a 'permanent ban', per the link inserted above. The particular 'permanent' status was unbeknownst to me, as is the situation regarding the justification thereof. Obviously, the heavy handed nature of that sanction went way over the top, and beyond that, there is no evidence that any confirmatory, much less reasoned, discourse ensued. The reasoning behind making the ban permanent certainly needs evaluation and negotiation, rather than unilateral, uncompromising, arrogant application. Please, outline any possible avenues you might make available for discussing an appropriate resolution, to the end of demonstrating how such censorious and abusive admin wikilawyering might be properly mitigated... Ombudsman 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- As you are disputing the current validity of the old topic ban, and it looks like it might not have been logged appropriately, I am replacing it with a new one...
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban[edit]
The following topic ban now applies to you:
You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions related to vaccinations and autism, broadly construed.
You have been sanctioned after returning after a long break and immediately resuming your chronic pseudoscientific POV-pushing, in this instance creating this article pushing pseudoscientific claims by a highly controversial former research scientist and an anti-vaccination proponent.
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.
If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- As I placed your block under the old topic ban, and have now replaced that ban by the new one, I have lifted the block. But you must not edit any pages falling under the new topic ban while it is in force. If you wish to appeal the new topic ban, there is a link to the process in the notification message above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
David Ray Griffin[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Orphaned non-free image File:TACA logo.jpg[edit]
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
[edit]
Wikipedia:Noticeboard for autism-related topics, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Noticeboard for autism-related topics and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Noticeboard for autism-related topics during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bangalamania (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Notice board for vaccine-related topics, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Notice board for vaccine-related topics and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:Notice board for vaccine-related topics during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bangalamania (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
[edit]
Wikipedia:Notice board for vaccine-related topics, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notice board for vaccine-related topics and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Notice board for vaccine-related topics during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bangalamania (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Donate Life America[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Donate Life America, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
- It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.donatelife.net/category/community/page/2/, https://www.crh.org/healthy-tomorrow/healthy-tomorrow/2019/03/29/national-donate-life-month-life-is-a-beautiful-ride, and https://www.roxboroughmemorial.com/news/2019/march/gift-of-life-national-observances-and-celebratio/}. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CUPIDICAE💕 23:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
You have been pruned from a list[edit]
Hi Ombudsman! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.
Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.
Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The article Dan Olmsted has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
subject was not a notable person
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.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Dawn Prince-Hughes for deletion[edit]
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn Prince-Hughes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members[edit]
Nomination of Phi complex for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phi complex 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.