Slowking4

Hi

Provided you don't use other accounts or IPs to edit, or edit disruptively, or make articles against our policies, there are no issues with you contributing here. However, if any of that happens, you will be blocked indefinitely and without warning as per WP:ONESTRIKE. Regards, Vermont (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

thank you for the welcome. i'm just here to write 1000 articles about notable people. it's good that you wrote down the admin practice, that admins follow, regardless of what policy might say elsewhere. you should be aware that attempts to Wikipedia:Deny recognition that shock outsiders, might get you interviewed by Wired magazine. [1] - Slowking4 (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't have a G5 deletion criteria here. If you make an article, and at some point you're blocked, the admin making the block isn't going to be going to Special:MassDelete. In my personal view, DENY doesnt work with most LTAs that venture into content creation, and regardless if they provide useful content we might as well keep it. That's different for undisclosed paid editors, however; that's a terms of use violation and inherently bad faith. Vermont (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

i still have my "cyber rights now" t-shirt,[2] so getting my name in Wired is a recognition I never could have dreamed of. Slowking4 (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Lina Rohe

An editor has requested deletion of Lina Rohe, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Lina Rohe and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Eptalon (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello, Slowking4! Here at Simple English Wikipedia we use the section heading "Other websites" instead of English Wikipedia's "External links". This makes it simpler and easier to read. Please remember to use "Other websites" in articles that you create in the future. Thank you for your help! IWI (chat) 00:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

ok, no problem, will copy edit those thus far. Slowking4 (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you friend. IWI (chat) 00:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, and a request

Thank you for all of the new article creation you are doing, especially the civil rights and human rights activists. I see that you are really into posting women athletes. I have a couple requests/suggestions that will improve them. One, add the sports-bio stub. Two, link, link, link. We aren't afraid of red links on this wiki. Link their hometowns, link water polo, link the major international matches. That's one way we eventually get new articles. See Anne Belden as an example of what I mean. Third, if at all possible, try to make these a little bit longer or add an image when possible. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

thanks for noticing. 300 down 700 to go. just taking a little bite out of the gender bias. apparently all the translation backlog at english is growing, since they hound anyone who is not perfect, and recreations are not systematic. i'm afraid the sports stubs are thin, because the sources are minimal. i will swing by again for those with college pages that have more detail. i was holding off adding images until Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos contest, next month; once they get linked to wikidata, then it is an easy infobox/wikidata. i may have changed my mind about all those competition articles - they are more like list articles from the old days, now more suited to a wikidata query. better to spend article writing time on translations of women bios. i will try more linking since it is easier in VE. cheers.Slowking4 (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Cheers! We have a looooooong way to go around here on gender and racial bias. Every new article helps. --Gotanda (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I have another request. When you create an article about a person, please include a defaultsort. You can see what it should look like by looking at the change I made to Alexandre Gaiscoigne. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

(tps) And one more thing, when you're making articles, please be as specific with their categories as possible. Miraclepine 19:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

yeah, sorry, i do not really use categories, or defaultsort. i use wikidata queries. i'm afraid i rely on my million edit friend to do the category work (elsewhere) i'm just making a rough pass of yob, nationality, and occupation. the category completion in VE is hit or miss.

the dirty little secret of gender gap percentage, is that the men athletes got in under "special" notability rules, and too few are interested in filling the gap, with stubs that have little chance of getting reliable sourcing. and a banned admin mass deleted 12000 sports stubs. Slowking4 (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Just coming back around to ask once again if you would start adding links and the sport bio stub to these articles. No links=no connections, so the articles are not as easily found. I understand you want to address the gender gap in total articles, but visibility is also important. --Gotanda (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi! There are so many acceptable birthdate templates out there, but appreciate you sticking to Day/Month/Year format in the articles you're creating. It makes adding infoboxes way easier for me. — Infogapp1 (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Paul Scharre

An editor has requested deletion of Paul Scharre, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Paul Scharre and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Chenzw  Talk  02:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

#WPWP

Just saying thanks for the work you're doing for this campaign! It's a welcome improvement to our articles. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

just a little maintenance for cash. m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos if we adopted more wikidata infoboxes, like french or catalan, i could write more articles. cheers. Slowking4 (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Are there infoboxes on French or Catalan Wikipedia that don't exist in English? In any case, you can add an image or create an article without an infobox. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

oh no - this is not a technical difference but a cultural one. here is the 2017 presentation by the expert File:Wikidatacon 2017. Wikidata-powered infoboxes.pdf - "Some enwp community members ○ Expectations that everything is perfect immediately ○ Unwillingness to help fix content problems on Wikidata - need local editing of Wikidata info ; My roll-out work is on hold for now" - to the extent we import manual infoboxes from english, we will have manual maintenance (even if 1/10 the amount) we could as a project advocate and convert to wikidata infobox, but it would require some leadership, and consensus. cheers Slowking4 (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Ilse Arts

An editor has requested deletion of Ilse Arts, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Ilse Arts and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Chenzw  Talk  03:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Ilse Arts

An editor has requested deletion of Ilse Arts, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Ilse Arts and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. IWI (chat) 19:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Toni Gilpin

An editor has requested deletion of Toni Gilpin, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Toni Gilpin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --IWI (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Wendy Gail Olsoff

An editor has requested deletion of Wendy Gail Olsoff, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Wendy Gail Olsoff and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --IWI (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability

• Hello Slowking4, I hope you are well. I am just letting you know that several of your recent articles do not appear to meet our notability requirements. You should ensure the article has enough coverage in reliable sources before creating an article about them. Further details of the rules can be found here, along with specifics for certain types of articles. I'd also like to remind you of our one strike rule that we have here. Considering you were blocked on the English Wikipedia because of similar issues to this, I would advise you to ensure the best that you can that people you create articles about are notable before publishing to avoid further RfDs and the possibility of an administrator exercising the one strike rule. Thank you, --IWI (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • we have a fundamental difference on what notability is. i have more article creations than you. i have hundreds more ready to go. do not threaten to block me; just block me right now in a summary way, since you are always right. so much for AGF. Slowking4 (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    • What notability is is not a matter of opinion. We have guidelines for this. Are you saying you refuse to follow our guidelines as you disagree with them? I am assuming good faith, by the way. That is why I am letting you know to ensure there are enough sources. In no way am I suggesting bad faith. --IWI (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
      • on the contrary, you have your opinion of what you think is notable, GirlsDoPorn, and i have mine Ilse Arts. i do not find your interpretation of the clear notability language to be reasonable. and you do not collaborate. please do not interact with me. i will not read or respond to any further comments you may happen to make. Slowking4 (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• You have made a lot of good articles also. I have been linking them to Wikidata and adding information to the relative item, as I am aware you cannot do this. Some required me to create an item. It also allowed me to add images to the articles where possible. Please don't think that I think all of your articles are about non-notable people – this is not the case. --IWI (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Laura Sparks

An editor has requested deletion of Laura Sparks, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Laura Sparks and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --IWI (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Meng Jin

The page you wrote, Meng Jin, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Zaxxon0 (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite Block

I've blocked you from editing on this project for consistently making bad articles, being disruptive, and unkind towards other editors. Since you were previously blocked on other projects, you are subject to the WP:ONESTRIKE policy here. You've been given many chances and we've tried to be accommodating, but it has become clear you are not willing to cooperate on our endeavor. Operator873^talkconnect 01:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Slowking4 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

"You've been given many chances and we've tried to be accommodating, but it has become clear you are not willing to cooperate on our endeavor." [citation needed]. you have not accommodated me. you have now blocked an editor with 1000 article creations, that you have not interacted with. Slowking4 (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You certainly have been given a number of chances on this wiki, more than a user in your position would normally be given based on WP:ONESTRIKE. Many of your articles do not meet notability requirements and quite frankly will take a long time to clean up through deletions as each one is going to need to be gone through. So I am declining this based on user not showing their understanding of what caused them to be blocked and nothing that shows they intend to fix the issues. -- Djsasso (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Slowking4, we have notability guidelines here that apparently differ from your perception of what is optimal. It is most beneficial if you accept that community consensus differs with your interpretation, rather than acting unkind to editors who disagree with you and creating articles you know do not fit within this community's definition of notability. You are welcome to contribute, as everyone is, so long as you abide by community consensus. That has not been the case. An unblock will be considered if you make note that you understand the problems with your activity here and how you will adjust your editing pattern to conform to existing community consensus. Regards, Vermont (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Vermont. I'm very willing to unblock and happily welcome you to continuing to edit here, so long as you respect the community and the established policies. The number of articles you create does not excuse you from being respectful and kind towards other editors. Nor does it permit you to establish your own policies and definitions for notability. Operator873^talkconnect 01:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

thank you for the honor of your block. i am abiding by the policy. the written notability policy is clear:

3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. [which is demonstrated by] This work has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length movie, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

the first sentence is a normative statement, the second is positive, [3] and falsifiable. you can assert your superior knowledge of who is a significant author, over and above Gish Jen, but you will need to elaborate on just who is a significant author, since it is idiosyncratic with your clique, at odds with the broad consensus elsewhere. when an author has ten independent and reliable reviews, that is a notable author, regardless of your POV misreading of the policy. you are headed for a Donna Strickland moment.[4],[5] hope you have better answers for the press, other than "i was following policy".[6] Slowking4 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NLT --Synoman Barris (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

there is nothing legal about getting your conduct splashed all over papers. the point being you can feel as justified as you want abusing admin tools and process, but the press will call you out. but i take it the purpose of this block is to have another go at global ban, with this false charge. would you like to get interviewed by wired magazine? Slowking4 (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The editor who wrote the comment this is in reply to is not an admin, and is a new editor. The editor who proposed your global ban is not an admin. At the time of writing, no admin from this project has edited your global ban discussion. There is no concerted effort to ban you; if I were to vote I'd probably oppose. Regarding your local block, if you would like to discuss how your view of notability differs from community consensus here, I would be happy to look at specific examples and discuss. If, however, you'd like to continue to make sweeping generalizations and claim the existence of some broad admin conspiracy, there's very little discussion to be had. Vermont (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

yeah, which socking admin are they? they have an intimate knowledge of global rfc's. on the contrary, quickly escalating a dispute about speedy deletion without consensus, and author notability, sure looks like collusion doesn't it? this was the pattern before Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop, Global lock for Slowking4 and IWI, Djsasso, and Operator873 have chimed in on meta (IWI at the time of your writing). notice that the usual suspects seem to want to try try again, and vote together. but it's all good, i'm sure the pressure from english must have been immense. no doubt the creation of a thousand articles G5'd at english must have been galling.

no response to my interpretation of notability above other than to call it legal. you sure you want to endorse a personal "significance" standard? the optics are bad. Slowking4 (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If you disagree with our notability guidelines you may propose a change to them with reasoned discussion, but you cannot simply continue to create articles about people you know do not fit our criteria. I tried to explain to this to you a few weeks ago but you simply chose to insult and ignore me instead. I would imagine that the admins will not be willing to consider unblock unless you accept that your idea of notability differs from that of this community and agree to follow the community's criteria when creating articles. Suggestions of conspiracies and bad faith surrounding our users will not be tolerated indefinitely, and I would suggest you do not continue such suggestions if you wish to continue contributing here. Kind regards, --IWI (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

i don't disagree with the guideline, just your unreasonable interpretation of it. i am not continuing to create articles i "know" do not fit. you have a dispute about six articles out of a thousand. and after all, not all nominations were deleted. i am creating articles that clearly meet the guideline as elaborated above. you are not going to consider an unblock no matter what i might say: that was the point of this block. you only have to look at the users showing up at investigation pages, and then at global ban pages to see a co-relation. reasonable people can draw conclusions. warnings to assume good faith border on gas lighting- see also "It tells marginalized people that you don’t see codes of conduct as tools to address systemic discrimination, but as tools to manage personal conflicts without taking power differences into account. Telling people to “assume good intent” sends a message about whose feelings you plan to center when an issue arises in your community." [7] Slowking4 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

user: Operator873 - would you care to reconsider your block to enforce a speedy deletion, where the article is recreated, and not deleted? Meng Jin. the fact pattern suggests that you are not following consensus processes, but are ruling by fiat. Slowking4 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Slowking4 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

---

Request reason:

the purpose of this block having passed, the global ban attempt not achieving consensus, this block serves no purpose, other than to assert admin rule, unhinged from facts and evidence.
an article was speedy deleted, and i recreated it, where it still exists. Meng Jin. therefore, this block serves to enforce admin rule, devoid of a consensus deletion discussion, or for that matter notability policy. Slowking4 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree that the issue of notability is a matter of debate (and should rightfully be discussed at RFD anyway instead of summarily decided in QD; note that a QD A4 deletion is not a finding of non-notability). However, unless you address the issues with civility, and your attempts to antagonize others with unhelpful comments such as appeal to authority and association fallacy, I do not see much about this unblock request to discuss. -- Chenzw  Talk  13:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

so you agree that "consistently making bad articles, being disruptive, and unkind towards other editors." was at least in part not founded on fact. don't know why your would say "that is an interesting interpretation of the criteria. don't know why you would second guess bill gates." and "on the contrary, you have your opinion of what you think is notable, GirlsDoPorn, and i have mine Ilse Arts. " is uncivil. i prefer an appeal to the authority of bill gates, than to an admin here; it is the admin asserting their superior authority of "significance". the articles an admin thinks are worthy of keeping is a fact, not a personal attack. (i refrained from speculating on the motives for the admin conduct; i leave the question of explicit or implicit bias to the philosophers). just look at this talk page, the antagonism comes from the admin assertion of authority, and then policing responses that call out that antagonism. if you want me to address "issues with civility" please be specific - generalities are bad optics. Slowking4 (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

when you say: "Saying that a "good faith" editor becomes an "LTA" is an oxymoron - if you accept that their contributions are good, what is the reason for turning into an LTA case in the first place?" you are being naive, and Manichean. LTA's are created all the time by the relentless cultural buzzsaw. it has become empty rhetoric unhinged from evidence. "LTAs are not one of us, and we can suspend the rules when dealing with them". in this current block, you admit the edits are good, but now you shift the rationale to "antagonize others" which is not in the policy. Slowking4 (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4

Naleksuh (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Christopher Leonard

An editor has requested deletion of Christopher Leonard, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Christopher Leonard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Christopher Phillips

An editor has requested deletion of Christopher Phillips, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Christopher Phillips and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. BRP ^ever 17:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Caitlin C. Rosenthal

An editor has requested deletion of Caitlin C. Rosenthal, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Caitlin C. Rosenthal and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. BRP ^ever 14:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Astrid Veillon

An editor has requested deletion of Astrid Veillon, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Astrid Veillon and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --Ferien (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Cara Fitzpatrick

An editor has requested deletion of Cara Fitzpatrick, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Cara Fitzpatrick and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --Ferien (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Rochelle Sharpe

An editor has requested deletion of Rochelle Sharpe, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2021/Rochelle Sharpe and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --Ferien (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Erin Carter

An editor has requested deletion of Erin Carter, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Erin Carter and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --Ferien (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Adam Hollingsworth

An editor has requested deletion of Adam Hollingsworth, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Adam Hollingsworth and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Anna Sieprath

An editor has requested deletion of Anna Sieprath, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Anna Sieprath and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --Ferien (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Meng Jin

An editor has requested deletion of Meng Jin, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Meng Jin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --Ferien (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Philipp Winkler

An editor has requested deletion of Philipp Winkler, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Philipp Winkler and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --Ferien (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Global ban proposal notification

Hello. This is to notify you that there is a proposal proposing that you be globally banned from all Wikimedia projects. You are invited to participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2). Thank you. Seawolf35 (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Ricci Ferigo

An editor has requested deletion of Ricci Ferigo, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the page meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Ricci Ferigo and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the page during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 10:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)