Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:11, 4 March 2015

Proposed deletion of Willingness to accept

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

Unreferenced, apparent original research

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CultureDrone (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Federation of Students

Please use the talk page prior to editing the CFS article. While I think I understand your desire to add certain information, your approach is not at all constructive or helpful. 71.7.133.156 (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Billy Mays

Please discuss the image on the talk page rather than restoring it again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Image problems

Please stop uploading images for which you fail to add the appropriate copyright details, or whose details you don't have. We take copyright status very seriously and the images you uploaded don't have this information, so have been nominated for deletion. While you may have made the screen capture, you did not make the original image and that is what counts, so you cannot own the copyright and these images are most likely copyright of the original cinematographer which is not you. Please don't upload images unless you have the permission of the copyright holder or you produced them yourself and are releasing them under a free licence. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

LikeALittle

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have restored the article, so that you can improve it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you haven't edited the article yet. It was restored because you said you knew of sources that indicate notability, but if you don't edit the article to incorporate that evidence of notability then it will be deleted again. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi James, I added quite a number of sources indicating notability, but it appears that the page has been deleted again. College papers have been used for sources on other pages that I've used. There are also other non-college news sources like the Toronto Star that were sourced. Why was it deleted?Spudst3r (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The coverage seemed rather parochial, and not all that substantial. What exists in other articles is not always a good guide, as there are many articles which don't satisfy Misplaced Pages's guidelines, and which may well be deleted if and when someone notices them and nominates them for deletion. College papers are fine as sources for verification of content, but how useful they are as sources to establish notability is debatable. I think it depends on various circumstances, such as how substantial the coverage is. However, since you have contested the deletion in the above message, I will restore the article. It will still be possible for someone to take it to Articles For Deletion, but if so it is by no means certain that it will be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Securitization (international relations), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State (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) 09:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request

Here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

In accordance with the men's rights movement community sanctions, you are hereby banned from making any edit or commenting on any content relating to the the men's rights movement, including any issues or people associated with that movement and closely related issues. This topic ban is in place indefinitely, but can be reviewed after three months of productive editing in another topic area. The reason for this restriction is that you have, in my opinion, an unhealthy focus on this topic and it would be in your interests and those of the encyclopaedia for you to broaden your editing interests; the immediate cause is your repeated addition of editorial-style content to encyclopaedia articles, based on novel synthesis of source material. This is as a result of this complaint at AE, but note that this restriction is imposed under the community sanctions rather than under Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions. Although there is considerable overlap between the two, the consensus appears to be that the articles on masculinity and the men's rights movement are not within the scope of the gamergate discretionary sanctions (which cover "any gender-related dispute or controversy"), but that controversies relating to them would be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely unbelievable. "Unhealthy focus"? I wonder if this idea will be fairly applied to all editors exhibiting and "unhealthy focus", or more likely, it will only be applied to those whose opinions do not mesh with the cabal of highly-POV admins/watchdogs? Shame... 70.109.187.181 (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)