User talk:JohnWBarber: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:09, 15 November 2009 editArcticocean (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,227 edits →Versageek and Lar request: statement length: Reply to John.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 03:54, 5 April 2024 edit undoDclemens1971 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers13,990 editsNo edit summary
(364 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			== Notification of automated file description generation ==
	<big>'''This is my current account. My former accounts are ], ], ] and ] (this last one redirects here), as well as the WikiCommons account ].'''
			Your upload of ] or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

			This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions ]. Thanks!<!--Template:Un-botfill-null--> ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 12:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
	'''] is an alternate account of this one which is used for security reasons in logging in at public computer terminals.'''</big>

			*Another one of your uploads, ], has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks!<!--Template:Un-botfill--> ''Message delivered by ] (])'' 15:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

			== Photo requests ==
	'''Welcome!'''

			Hi! Do you do photo requests in Connecticut?
	Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]{{#if:\|, especially what you did for ]}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
			] (]) 20:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
	*]
			== Proposed deletion of Darien EMS – Post 53 ==
	*]
			]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:\|]\|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> ] (]) 04:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

			The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	== Norwalk Wiki ==
			:'''very small local volunteer organization -- not remotely notable'''

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ].
	Greetings, great work on ] related stuff. I recently created the for everything that would not otherwise be notable enough for Misplaced Pages. Its brand new, so we need to get the word out about it. I invite your correspondence. ] (]) 22:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	==List of Sea Captains==
	Hi, I'm cooking ] - regards - ] (]) 01:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

			Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ''']''' (]) 04:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
	== Your request ==
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ] 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.
	]. ] (]) 18:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

			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.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] \| ] 01:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
	== Thanks ==

			== ] ==
	Thanks. I do believe that there is serious canvassing-like issues here. Too many strange things happening by the same people. See my comments on Kevin's page. I forsee AN/I or arbcom sooner than later... But I will keep a lid on it if and until that happens. ] (]) 03:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
	:Hummm the translation line is also pretty in-you-face. I agree with exactly what you said, but I think we should both walk away for a bit. Best of luck to you. ] (]) 03:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

			{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
	==Unblock request==
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692013717 -->
	{{tlx\|unblock\|1=This is a shorter version of my original unblock request at ]. I'm posting it here because that may make it easier for an admin to unblock this account, the one I want unblocked. 24 hours after blocking, Versageek finally offered an explanation: ''Using an alternate account for aggressive debates IS disruptive, and being disruptive with an alternate account IS abusive - even if you've recently marked your main account 'retired'.'' Versageek has simply contradicted what all editors are told is policy at the ] part of ]. ''If you decide to make a fresh start, and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit.'' Let's not contradict the clear language of the policy, particularly when the blocking editor doesn't think there was a bad intent (Versageek says of me ''I don't think it was User:Noroton's intention to be abusive - he just stumbled into that trap''). The idea that "aggressive debat" is ''disruptive'' -- a blockable offense -- only applies if what I was doing either was uncivil (or worse) or if I made it much more difficult for the discussion at the Shankbone AfD or DRV to continue. In fact, my comments in both discussions were focused on the things that ] and ] and the instructions on ] tell us we are supposed to be doing in discussions -- talking about policy and facts and (at DRV) whether or not the closing admin acted within policy and procedure. Either I have the right to a clean start or I don't. Versageek doesn't like the idea that I spoke at the AfD while people didn't know my prior conflict with Shankbone, and in a vague, abstract way there could be something wrong with that, although it isn't wrong in the letter or spirit of SOCK or any other policy. The problem he points to simply wasn't simultaneous with the Noroton account, which I'd stopped using by Oct. 5. Although Versageek didn't bring this up, I will: My using CountryDoctor and Reconsideration and JohnWBarber together could be interpreted as a violation of WP:SOCK, particularly the way that policy is now written. I've said elsewhere on my talk page that when I started using these alternate accounts, they were discouraged but not prohibited by SOCK policy, the language of which focused more on ''abusive'' use of alternate accounts (for instance, the lead then stated, ''While many reasons for using alternative accounts are acceptable, a number of uses for them are explicitly forbidden.'' ; from "Avoiding scrutiny" subsection: ''Alternative accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account. it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.'' -- No one would have had a legitimate interest to make comparisons between any of my new accounts, ever, or between any of them and Noroton while I was using that account). It wasn't even prohibited for Reconsideration to comment in an RfC for a change in style policy at the time that account did so. Both the Reconsideration and JohnWBarber accounts participated in AfDs, which goes against policy as currently written. My bad, and I wouldn't do that again -- but let's not pretend that any harm was done. Anyone who scrutinizes the edits of Reconsideration would gain no insight into JohnWBarber or vice versa. Versageek is concerned about scrutiny involving the Noroton account, but once that account finally wound down its editing and resigned, it stopped being subject to WP:SOCK. The "scrutiny" that socking improperly avoids is supposed to be "justified scrutiny" (in the words of older versions of WP:SOCK) -- scrutiny of misbehavior of various sorts. Unjustified scrutiny -- scrutiny in order to continually bring up past actions of an editor even though doing so only clouds the issue -- is what CLEANSTART is supposed to help an editor avoid. The purpose of using separate accounts was originally to avoid having editors who were antagonistic to me start stalking me in areas separate from politics, and I used separate accounts to prevent the kind of unjustified scrutiny that would lead to those antagonistic editors following me. After a while, I became unconcerned about that, but it was why I did it and initially it was not a violation of policy to do it for that reason. I also found I became more annoyed when I logged in as Noroton than when I logged into the other accounts. I'd been planning on unifying the accounts eventually, but I'd hoped to do it silently. Since I knew I wasn't being disruptive with any of the accounts and was never deceptive, it was never a priority for me to unify them (and until recently, I didn't know how easily I could combine the long watchlists). If any admin had simply emailed me and told me I seemed to be violating WP:SOCK, I'd have looked into it and shuttered all but one account. I'll probably -- again-- exercise my right to ] at some future point. Since I didn't edit disruptively at all with JohnWBarber, at the DRV or anywhere else, there is no reason for anything other than dropping the block entirely, immediately. If a checkuser willing to work with me briefly will email me, I have a privacy concern related to this that a checkuser can handle, or I can contact one when I no longer have the block. At this point, I'd prefer simply to have the JohnWBarber account.}}
	{\| width="75%" align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;"
	\|-
	\| valign="top" style="padding: 0.5em" \| ]
	\| style="padding: 0.1em" \|

			== ] ==
	'''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s):
	<br><br>see ramarks below

			Hi,<br>
	''Request handled by:'' ] (]) 22:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
			You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692210171 -->

			== ] ==
	<small> '''Unblocking administrator''': Please check for <span class="plainlinks"> on this user after accepting the unblock request.</small>
	<!-- Request accepted (after-block request) -->
	\|}
	:*Could you please list all other accounts you have edited with while we're waiting? ] (]) 19:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
	::* This one, ], ], and two others. I can give information on those two by email to a checkuser. I have good reason to keep them private, and the checkuser should be able to confirm that there are reasons to keep them private and that they were both harmless in any practical sense, but I won't say any more about it and won't use them again (the checkuser can help me close them quietly). Can I email while blocked? Is there a checkuser who would look into it? -- ] (]) 20:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::*I've just asked ] if <s>s</s>he would look into this, I believe you should still be able to use email. ] (]) 21:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::*Errm - Hersfold is male, BTW, at least according to his userboxes. I didn't check anything else, mind :) - ] <sup>]</sup> 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

			Hi,<br>
	As a matter of interest, the original blocking admin is also a checkuser. However, if you'd be happier discussing it with me, I'm also available. As an oversighter, I'm bound to confidentiality re. privacy issues - ] <sup>]</sup> 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
			You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692215842 -->

			== ] ==
	:I'm ] if needed; you should have access to the email user function. And yes, I am male. ;-) ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 21:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Thanks all. I trust and respect you, Allison, and I appreciate the offer, but I'll email Hersfold on this one. I'll need about an hour (making dinner). ] (]) 21:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
	*Sorry about my gender assumption, I jumped to a conclusion based on the user name. ] (]) 22:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

			Hi,<br>
	Sent. ] (]) 00:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
			You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692215842 -->
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ] 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.
	===Update===
	I thought about it, and I don't really have privacy concerns about these accounts. These are the accounts: ], User:Amg37 on Commons, which I used inadvertently to participate innocuously in an AfD (the short WP contributions page will show it). Also, ] is publicly linked with ] at the top of each user page. I used R2 for public computer terminals. I really am sick of all this. I did nothing worth blocking, what I did was either within policy when I did it or was obviously a minor violation of policy, wasn't done to harm either Misplaced Pages or any editor, did not in fact harm either and was never worth more than a message either asking me if I was doing something wrong or telling me to stop doing it. If I've missed a single thing in this explanation, just ask.

			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.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ''']''' (]) 00:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
	I started the Picabu account at a time when I thought I might be able to deny that I lived where my "Noroton" user name indicated I live, but I no longer care who knows about that. The Picabu account was for taking pictures, which are all (or almost all) from the area where I live. This is the list of all the contributions from the Picabu account: This is the last of three links to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard when I asked for advice. I did want to avoid scrutiny of that request, but not of my own conduct -- it was a sensitive BLP matter and I didn't want some of the editors on the Obama page to post it without reliable sourcing (they later did and were reverted; later on, reliable sources reported it and I posted it myself). Before anyone responded, I crossed out the request. Last edit: No harm was done. This was the state of the WP:SOCK page on that date:
			== File:NewsArticleTheHatchetNwprOnBoardUSSGeoWash02171919.jpg listed for discussion ==
			] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 03:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
			== File:NewspaperFrontPagePartTheHatchetUSSGeoWash02171919.jpg listed for discussion ==
			] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 03:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

			== List of British literary awards ==
	I started Amg37 when I started this account and Reconsideration and for the same reasons. It was used for uploading pictures from elsewhere on the Internet. That account voted in an Afd here: That was on March 29. I voted "delete" along with four other people. There were no Keeps. That's the only edit I saw in the Misplaced Pages contributions, but here's the contributions page: This is the version of the WP:SOCK page on that day -- it doesn't actually prohibit using an alternate account in a deletion discussion: As I say below, it's been clearly prohibited by WP:SOCK to do this as of Oct. 3. ] (]) 17:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

			Hi there, I look after the PR for the Desmond Elliott Prize for New Fiction and hoped you could please add it to the page 'List of British literary awards' that you created, under 4.2 'First novel': https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_British_literary_awards
	==For future reference==
	This is the diff where ] first forbid alternate accounts from editing deletion debates. It occurred '''October 3''' So any AfD edits by socks before that date, 27 days ago, were not forbidden by WP:SOCK (bold italics added):
	**Old language:
	:::'''''Sock puppets might be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists.''''' Though typically it is the weight of arguments that wins the day, having multiple sock puppets participate, whether arguing with each other or else supporting a common cause, can still cause considerable confusion, and is therefore prohibited. This includes voting multiple times in any ], '''''using more than one account in discussions such as ],''''' ], or on talk pages, or engaging with two or more accounts in an ].

			The Desmond Elliott Prize is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year and has its own wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Desmond_Elliott_Prize
	:::'''''In addition to double-voting,''''' sock puppets might be used for the purpose of deception, distraction, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists.

			The Prize's website is here: http://www.desmondelliottprize.org.uk/
	**New language that replaced it:
	:::'''Creating an illusion of support'''
	::::Alternate accounts must not used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists.
	:::'''Editing project space'''
	::::Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in ], '''''deletion debates''''', or ].

			Here is some past coverage about the Prize:
	] (]) 04:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
			http://www.thebookseller.com/news/lisa-mcinerney-steals-desmond-elliott-prize-second-major-win-337901
			https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/may/06/desmond-elliott-prize-shortlist-unveiled-debut-fiction
			http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookprizes/11710947/Claire-Fuller-wins-10000-Desmond-Elliott-Prize.html

			Could you let me know? Many thanks for your help.
	*Try to see the forest through the trees. Hair splitting and ] about whether you actually violated the sockpuppetry policy is not going to move the unblock request forward. In any event, the very first sentence of that policy is: ''"The default position on Misplaced Pages is that editors who register should edit using one account only."'' Since you have acknowledged seven accounts so far, we need to identify which ones you intend to keep as alternate accounts and which you are willing to abandon. Please indicate below what your intentions are regarding:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	*]
	] (]) 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

			] (]) 14:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
	:First, I already said, repeatedly, that JohnWBarber is the account I want to keep. See the last lines of the block request. That's why we're on this page instead of ], where this began (perhaps you weren't aware of that). Second, I didn't deny that I in fact violated the policy, in fact, I've commented at the Noroton talk page on ways that Versageek didn't bring up but where I went wrong. I've been open and honest on this and admitted mistakes. I did violate the policy as it is now written, just in having the accounts. Now look at the policy as it was written when I set up the accounts in early November 2008 and look for the underlying principles, not just the technical language. The spirit of a policy can usually be found in the nut graph and the lead section. The nut graph says ''The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block. Multiple accounts are not for collusion, evasion, disruption, or other misuse.'' I didn't do any of that, ever. Look at the first line of the lead: ''A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively.'' Later, it says, ''If someone uses alternative accounts, it is recommended but not required that s/he provide links between the accounts''. I'm not going to say I was wrong not to follow the 2009 language of the policy in 2008 when I actually looked at it before setting up the accounts. You could say that I should have paid attention to the changes in the policy. That's a fair criticism. I'm guilty of not doing that! Is it worth continuing the block for that reason?
			== ] of ] ==
			]

			The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	:I looked into ways I might have violated WP:SOCK because, in fact, I'm concerned about violating the spirit of it with what I did. I concluded that I didn't do any of this to avoid ''legitimate'' scrutiny. If I'd continued voting in AfDs with two accounts, I'd have started to avoid the spirit. That I commented on a controversial matter with JohnWBarber instead of Reconsideration is a violation. It wasn't a violation that actually was done to avoid what's in the ''spirit'' of WP:SOCK because no practical harm was done or could have been done by using JWB instead of Recon. It was a technical violation done in good faith. (Nothing would be gained by looking at the edits of Reconsideration to gain insight into JWB comments in the Shankbone discussions.) It isn't wikilawyering to say that either. Are technical violations done in good faith worth continuing the block?
			<blockquote>The magazine may be notable. This article, however, is blatantly promotional and not based on ], of which it cites at best one, and that one has a single sentence of content about AGNI. ] applies; there is no meaningful salvageable, well-referenced content here.</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	:I've said I'll stick to one account. Do you have reason not to believe me?

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	-- ] (]) 21:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
	::As you can see, I have unblocked you. I'd like to clarify a few points though. Even if you did not intend to be deceptive, using multiple accounts is generally frowned upon. I completely understand your concern about the photographs of your neighborhood and not wanting to be personally identified, but the reasons the rest of the accounts were created is still a bit unclear. Many users feel that any undisclosed alternate account is an indication that a user has something to hide. You may not be aware that there have been several recent scandals involving well-established users and multiple accounts, and several administrators have been desysopped as a result, so this is kind of a "hot button" issue right now, which is part of the reason I wanted to insure we were on the same page about this before unblocking. The other reason is that I am fairly new to handling these types of requests, and as a result I may have asked you to jump through some hoops that weren't really necessary. I'm sorry if this seemed overly harsh, I was trying to be cautious, but making you repeat yourself was probably not needed. Anyway, I'm glad this is resolved and you can return to editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::Thank you, I appreciate that comment, and I understand that you wouldn't want to unblock and then see an editor do the same thing again. My initial reason, in November '08, was to avoid unwanted contact or even unwanted reactions from people I'd been in conflict with. Later, I found I had little to worry about regarding that, but by that time I found I enjoyed Misplaced Pages much better when I was editing under a name other than Noroton, I guess because that user name just brought up annoyances to me. Under the Nov. '08 policy language it didn't seem to matter what the reason was. Things have changed, I accept that. I don't need the accounts now. My conscience is free because I didn't do anything harmful. Thanks for the comment and for the unblock. -- ] (]) 22:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

			Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 01:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
	== The unblock isn't working ==
			== ] of ] ==
			]

			The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	{{tl\|unblock-auto\|1=69.120.113.253\|2=\|4=1629574}}
			<blockquote>Unref blp written like an advert - need ]ing at best. I could not verify its notability.</blockquote>
	{{tl\|adminhelp}}
	I don't have much experience with autoblock removal and I can't figure out how to get this guy unblocked. The toolserver says he's not blocked. Little help? ] (]) 23:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	:Taken care of. It would have been easier if the unblock request template had been posted properly, but enough was left intact to take care of it. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 23:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
	::Sorry, I guess I'll have to be blocked a lot more before I understand how these things work. I'll work on it! ] (]) 23:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::]I could be wrong, but Hersfold may actually be referring to the original unblock, which got kind of mangled in the course of my accepting it. (Although as far as I can tell I followed the instructions as written it didn't seem to work quite right.) Have a cold one on me. ] (]) 00:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	== Response to Lar ==
	''I posted this response to Lar days ago on my Noroton account talk page:''

			Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 19:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
	Part of a comment Lar made at ]:
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
	:''Rather than arguing that policy DOES say something, you need to argue that policy SHOULD say something, to sway others to sustain or overturn. Because policy here, at this point in time, is not clear cut. No consensus BLP as delete sometimes passes muster and sometimes doesn't. I've argued that policy SHOULD favor deletion for BLPs, elsewhere, at length. And I will continue to close them that way. Because I don't always get overturned. This is one of the BLPs where deletion is the right outcome.'' ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ] 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.
	This was my response to that passage:
	:''If the policy change is so "descriptive", why is it having so much trouble getting consensus at the Deletion policy talk page? Looks to me like it's getting more and more prescriptive, and edging closer to proscriptive. Lar, if you fail to change policy, what should be done in the future with closing admins who deliberately violate WP:DEL as it stands? Would you object to warnings and blocks? JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)''
	::'You need to dial down the threats. DRV is intended to see if there is consensus that the close is endorsable or not, and if it is it sticks and if it isn't, it's overturned. A series of DRVs will shift policy, because policy in this area is not, and will never be, proscribing. If you think you can block an admin over a close made in good faith, you have another think coming. Keep up this sort of disruptive, argumentative badgering and you might find yourself blocked. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)''

			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.<!-- Template:afd notice --> —]]] 17:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
			== ] of ] ==
			]

			The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	I responded here . Part of an additional response that I originally posted at ]:
			<blockquote>The ] article was deleted for failing to meet notability guidelines. By that logic, there is no reason for this list to exist.</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	I meant to point out that he's arguing that policy needs to catch up to "practice", although the consensus for a policy change wasn't forming at ], and not being able to change the policy through consensus would seem to me to show that the kind of deleting he wants to do is both contrary to policy and without consensus. How can you go against policy when you don't have a consensus to do so? Since DRV is normally subject to the challenge of getting a consensus ''to overturn'', doesn't a deliberate violation of the language of ] amount to gaming the system -- in fact, violating policy? He states, ''You need to dial down the threats.'' ] (]) 02:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	:John, I think you miss the part about suddenly going to high-drama behavior in Lar's comment, and that you far too easily dismiss the history with Shankbone simply because he's gracious enough to disregard it. I'm surprised you don't see it, but make some effort to consider the effects on project related discussions if it was completely ok to use a brand new account in order to pursue the most contentious of project-related issues. You keep saying that you weren't disruptive in how you did it, and I'll even grant that maybe you weren't. That completely misses the point. If I saw you doing this as a CU, the fact is it would be downright negligent just to accept it, or even to take your word that you were not misleading anyone by your actions. It's too much! This is an AfD on someone that you know darned well is going to be the height of controversy, and where misbehavior on your part would have a huge potential to taint the entire decision. This in turn has a huge potential to cause additional problems down the road. In fact, if this had not been brought to the community's attention until after the deletion review closed, I think the concern would have been much greater. You know? This doesn't mean you intended to deceive, or that you acted in bad faith, although to be honest your inability to see these problems does suggest some degree of selective hearing, if that's the right phrase. We all have blind spots, but anyway, I hope you'll try to consider this a little bit more from outside your own perspective, and the whole thing might make more sense. ] (]) 06:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

			Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 15:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
	::Thanks for your response, I can only quickly address a couple of points. First, I think blocks are over-used as a general matter, and I think communication first would have been better here as it would be in just about all cases. You're right that there's no reason to block someone as a first step; mistakes are far too easily made, even with several people working together. Second, I agree that policy should be as clear as possible. With that said, I don't see how you addressed my point. In this case I think a CU would have been justified in thinking that not to act immediately would have risked prejudicing a very prominent DRV. Accordingly, I think any CU looking at this would have needed to raise the issue for those participating in the ongoing DRV. Moreover, based on your current explanation, and assuming your good faith, I think an admonishment would be called for: don't jeopardize significant processes with your use of an alternate (or brand new) account. I'm not commenting on all aspects of your case, as I haven't looked in at it closely enough (such as whether both checkusers were too involved in this to act or if you can say one improperly influenced the other). I've just gotten the feeling that you aren't seeing how the way you went about all of this played into the result, which I think is giving you unrealistic expectations. ] (]) 17:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ] 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.
	:::I appreciated the reference to "high drama" because it was the same problem I saw. It doesn't mean your actions were dramatic; it's a statement about the discussion itself (see the current policy which prohibits alternate accounts in project discussions, for a reason).. As far as it being obvious that you were acting in good faith, however, the problem is that it isn't obvious at all. I don't know if you are aware of the ] article (now under another name), and its very long list of AfDs, but it turned out that the very first AfD for that article was done by a sockpuppet of one of its creators, exactly to disrupt that and future discussions. In just about every subsequent AfD people would say "what, again?" In parliamentary procedure, this kind of thing is . To say it was completely obvious you were acting in good faith, well I'm sorry, but nobody's intent can be that obvious to another person who has so little to go on. This isn't about arrogance, but about basic responsibility to the project. As far as scandals go, if Shankbone later discovered your involvement, and that multiple checkusers knew about it but said nothing about it, ''that'' would be a scandal.

			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.<!-- Template:afd notice --> ]] 03:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
	:::Regarding policy, I think that's just never how Misplaced Pages has worked. You're supposed to follow community norms, not just the letter of these policies. See ], which is the first link at ]. I don't know that it's the best system, but that's the system in place. ] (]) 01:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ] 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.
	==Thanks==
	Hey JWB. :) Thanks very much for your reorg of the P.C. article. It was very helpful. I was trying to add stuff and thinking about how to group it a little better (the extensive female section seemed a bit weird), and you came and did it up very well. It's great when I'm grinding away on something and someone with fresh eyes on the subject can come in and fix it up. I trimmed the "literarily presitigious" and "early" bits from what you added. I didn't see that in the source and it seemed like unnecessary embellishment. Have a great weekend. Take care. ] (]) 03:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
	:Hey, no worries. And I think a fresh start is a great idea and opportunity. I had no idea who you were when I came here to thank you. It's funny how usernames make certain impressions. JohnWBarber seemed very studious and scholarly to me. I assumed you were one of those bigtime senior editors who don't post to the drama boards but just do serious article work. I think some people think I'm a punk or young for my user name (I know some think I'm a woman because there's a song of that title). Anyway, enjoy yourself. Don't forget to let me know when you get your article underway so I can have a look! ] (]) 03:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

			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.
	== Versageek and Lar request: statement length ==
			<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] ] 18:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
	Your statement on the ''JohnWBarber, Versageek, Lar'' case request is excessively lengthy. Readers should not be expected to have to read through 4000 words in order to understand the argument being made by a single editor. Please trim it, or ask a clerk to do so for you. ] 19:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''', to which you have , is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or if it should be ].

			The discussion will take place at ] 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.
	: My suggestion is to condense your initial statement into small paragraphs or bullet points. Focus on why the arbitration committee should hear your case. Then simply have a couple of lines in response to any other statements you want to rebut. If you'd like to have a link to your initial statement in the trimmed version, that would be fine with me. ] 19:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

			To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit ]. Delivered by '']'' (]) 01:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template -->
	:: I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear that I was acting in my capacity as a clerk. Flouting my position would seem to me to give the impression of from-on-high dictation, which I dislike doing, but I guess in some cases it can be as unhelpful as it is collegial. The same applies for my userpage, although I both have a clerk icon (the meaning of which is not easy to understand to most, I concede) and am listed on the ]. But I take your point. And thank you for reducing your statement. ] 21:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''', to which you have , is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or if it should be ].

			The discussion will take place at ] 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 ]. Delivered by '']'' (]) 01:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template -->
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ] 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.
			<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 07:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
			== File:FairfieldCtyWeeklyBox07152007.JPG listed for discussion ==
			] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 17:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
			== ] of ] ==
			]

			The file ] has been ] because of the following concern:
			<blockquote>'''Superseded by ].'''</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].

			Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ]] 13:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
			== ] of ] ==
			]

			The file ] has been ] because of the following concern:
			<blockquote>'''Unused, low quality. Superseded by ].'''</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].

			Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> --]<sup>«¦]¦»</sup> 15:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
			== ] of ] ==
			]

			The file ] has been ] because of the following concern:
			<blockquote>'''Unused, superseded by ].'''</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].

			Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> --]<sup>«¦]¦»</sup> 02:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
			== ] of ] ==
			]

			The file ] has been ] because of the following concern:
			<blockquote>'''Unused, superseded by ].'''</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].

			Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> --]<sup>«¦]¦»</sup> 02:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
			==] has been nominated for merging==

			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ]] 07:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
			== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			<div class="afd-notice">
			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

			The article will be discussed at ] 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.
			<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 16:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

			== ] of ] ==
			]

			The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
			<blockquote>'''Subject does not meet notability standards under ].'''</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].

			Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify -->

Latest revision as of 03:54, 5 April 2024

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:BatesScofieldDarienCT07252007.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Another one of your uploads, File:ConnecticutPostVendingBox081107.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Photo requests

Hi! Do you do photo requests in Connecticut? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Darien EMS – Post 53

The article Darien EMS – Post 53 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

very small local volunteer organization -- not remotely notable

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Book store shoplifting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Book store shoplifting is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Book store shoplifting 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. Orange Mike | Talk 01:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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 Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Nomination of Darien EMS – Post 53 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darien EMS – Post 53 is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Darien EMS – Post 53 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.

File:NewsArticleTheHatchetNwprOnBoardUSSGeoWash02171919.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NewsArticleTheHatchetNwprOnBoardUSSGeoWash02171919.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob₁₃ 03:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

File:NewspaperFrontPagePartTheHatchetUSSGeoWash02171919.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NewspaperFrontPagePartTheHatchetUSSGeoWash02171919.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob₁₃ 03:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

List of British literary awards

Hi there, I look after the PR for the Desmond Elliott Prize for New Fiction and hoped you could please add it to the page 'List of British literary awards' that you created, under 4.2 'First novel': https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_British_literary_awards

The Desmond Elliott Prize is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year and has its own wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Desmond_Elliott_Prize

The Prize's website is here: http://www.desmondelliottprize.org.uk/

Here is some past coverage about the Prize: http://www.thebookseller.com/news/lisa-mcinerney-steals-desmond-elliott-prize-second-major-win-337901 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/may/06/desmond-elliott-prize-shortlist-unveiled-debut-fiction http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookprizes/11710947/Claire-Fuller-wins-10000-Desmond-Elliott-Prize.html

Could you let me know? Many thanks for your help.

80.87.18.226 (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of AGNI (magazine)

The article AGNI (magazine) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The magazine may be notable. This article, however, is blatantly promotional and not based on reliable sources, of which it cites at best one, and that one has a single sentence of content about AGNI. WP:TNT applies; there is no meaningful salvageable, well-referenced content here.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Huon (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ralph Angel

The article Ralph Angel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unref blp written like an advert - need WP:TNTing at best. I could not verify its notability.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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.

Nomination of History of Hartford, Connecticut for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of Hartford, Connecticut is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/History of Hartford, Connecticut 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.

Proposed deletion of List of Planetree Alliance members

The article List of Planetree Alliance members has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The Planetree Alliance article was deleted for failing to meet notability guidelines. By that logic, there is no reason for this list to exist.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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.

Nomination of Book store shoplifting for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Book store shoplifting (2nd nomination) 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.

Nomination of 2005 in books for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2005 in books is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2005 in books 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.

Noah 18:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of 2005 in books for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2005 in books, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2005 in books 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) 01:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Fairfield Community Theatre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fairfield Community Theatre, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fairfield Community Theatre 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.

Nomination of Dago dazzler for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dago dazzler is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dago dazzler (2nd nomination) 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.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

File:FairfieldCtyWeeklyBox07152007.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FairfieldCtyWeeklyBox07152007.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:CharlesOsgoodHenryWareSrjpeg.JPG

The file File:CharlesOsgoodHenryWareSrjpeg.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Superseded by File:Henry Ware Sr. (1764-1845).jpeg.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. matt br 13:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:JohnKensettShrewsburyRiver.jpg

The file File:JohnKensettShrewsburyRiver.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, low quality. Superseded by File:John F Kensett - View of the Shrewsbury River, New Jersey - Google Art Project.jpg.

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

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

Proposed deletion of File:DennisMillerBunkerThePoolMedfieldMFA.jpg

The file File:DennisMillerBunkerThePoolMedfieldMFA.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, superseded by File:Dennis Miller Bunker - The Pool, Medfield.jpg.

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

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

Proposed deletion of File:DennisMillerBunkerThePoolMedfield.jpg

The file File:DennisMillerBunkerThePoolMedfield.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, superseded by File:Dennis Miller Bunker - The Pool, Medfield.jpg.

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

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

Category:Robert Burns Cottage has been nominated for merging

Category:Robert Burns Cottage has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ✗plicit 07:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Arthur Rense Prize for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arthur Rense Prize is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rense Prize 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.

—Compassionate727 16:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Victorino Matus

The article Victorino Matus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject does not meet notability standards under WP:NJOURNALIST.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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.