Chooserr

Don't let the jackasses certain editors get to you. They're nothing but jackasses editors. :) --Elliskev 01:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Revised my statement so as not to hurt ant any feelings. --Elliskev 12:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Revised your statement so that the ants don't feel they are being singled out :) Chooserr 17:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha! That was pretty funny. --Elliskev 17:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The only one

Hi Chooserr,

You wrote, "I...definitely don't think I should be the only one who has to remove the links on his page."

Of course you shouldn't be, and aren't. I'm going to ask you, Ellis, Alienus and anyone else watching this page to let me know if you see anything else like this, for any off-wiki cause, and I'll do what I can (possibly, not much) to see that it's taken care of.Timothy Usher 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. This should apply across the board. Al 20:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Let's wipe this crap off the face of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Chooser, My personal reaction to this user page is, yuk. However, it doesn't appear to be a solicitation. I'd remove it were it up to me, just because it gives me the creeps. Do we really need to know all this? But I'm not sure that it falls into the same category, as it's not an overt solicitation. Let's run it by Sidaway.Timothy Usher 05:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll also agree, Chooserr, that if Gorton is in the clear in maintaining his external link, then so are you, so long as you're not soliciting donations or linking to a page that does. Still, I'd rather you not. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Etc.

Gorton's userpage is intentionally provocative to most anyone who holds remotely traditional views in these regards - the premise is that Gorton is just telling us about him/herself, but like a lot of identity politics, it's also a "we're here, we're X, get used to it!" type socio-political statement.

My advice is, don't be like Gorton. But, that's not policy.Timothy Usher 07:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So, I think the rule - if here is one - is that you can your user page to trump your beliefs and personal activities completely unrelated to wikepedia. External links, too, are acceptable, so long as they don't solicit or advertise. We should use normal font sizes, so it doesn't sound like we're screaming, and keep it off user talk as per Alienus' objection.

Personally, I'm disappointed - I think all off-topic and/or partisan info should go - but he's probably right in saying that Gorton's userpage is "normal", in the sense that WP editors often do post such material. So go on ahead. I'm sure if there's a problem, we'll hear about it.Timothy Usher 19:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about where this is going. As a Wikipedia editor, Nick Gorton deserves as much respect as anyone else. We cannot go around taking offence simply because somebody exists. He does pro bono work for a health clinic that focuses on health care for transsexuals, and it's reasonable therefore to link to that clinic's website. --Tony Sidaway 19:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course you're absolutely right that Nick Gorton deserves respect as an editor - I don't know him or his contributions, so have no cause to judge.

My point is actually rule number one, "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia". T2 is just one facet of this. We often hear, this is not Myspace, and indeed it's not...so what's all this Myspacey stuff doing on WP? It's time to actually start enforcing WP:NOT, with an added provision in case the others aren't clear enough: it's not about us.Timothy Usher 20:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:User page. As far as I'm aware, Nick Gorton's page is compatible with that. --Tony Sidaway 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur.Timothy Usher 20:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Beuchel

Thank you for contributing this stub! I have announced it at Portal:Germany/New article announcements. Please add any article you create that is related to Germany there. Thank you, and happy editing, Kusma (討論) 21:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the page via Special:Newpages and have checked and slightly expanded the translation. Kusma (討論) 22:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

Glad to help. If you want to link to a category, rather than adding the page to that category, you need a colon just before the word "Category". By the way, I'm sorry about recent events. I saw some of it, but was very caught up with other things at the time. It's quite true that that link is not appropriate for a user or talk page, but the insinuation that you would have refused to take it down if shown that it violated policy was completely unjustified, and the vandalism of your talk page was in extremely poor taste. Don't let it get you down. AnnH ♫ 23:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

cisgender

Hey, Thank you for your attempt at the search - at least you made a fair attempt at actually using google. Yes, google comes up with thosuands of entries for cisman - it is an surname of the people of India. If you use the search cisman cisgender it will be reduced to a handful with the majority being from wikipedia itself. The logic here is simple, since cisman and cisgender are 'supose' to be complimentary terms, you would think that you would find them on the same page of text, but since they are not, then it is obvious that they do not allign and are not related. A second analogy would be that if you expect to find cisman 12,000 some times, you would also expect to find ciswoman the same number, and since you do not find but 107 of those, it would be easier to search through them, as I did with every entry. It is used as a handle and as a sig line, but not in a definition of what the word is. Thanks for at least looking. I will not delete your comment from cisgender, but I would appriciate it if you would modify it after you have verified what I have said here. Thanks again, FemVoice 06:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You made my night

Thank you, and thank you, and thank you for letting me know that I am not crazy. FemVoice 06:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Hi. AnnH has convinced me that I misread your tone and, as a result, gave you a stern warning when a gentle chat might have been better [1]. I was also very rude when you came asking for a policy reason. I did not think it possible that you would not know that the solicitation would be controversial, and at the time I did not realise that you had displayed it for months without any complaints. I apologise for this; I think I nearly drove you from the project, and that would have been a loss to us all. --Tony Sidaway 23:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Skorpa translated.

Took a shot at your request for translation of Skorpa. Not a bad little article; thanks for flagging it. Williamborg 02:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

EC article

A lot of work by many people was put into finding those source - I would never want to scrap it! They are all here: Beginning of pregnancy controversy

Also, the EC pill has been proven to delay ovulation, if taken at least 36 hours before ovulation would have occurred. Delaying ovulation gives time for sperm to die, so when ovulation actually happens there are no more sperm around and therefore no conception. This contraceptive effect is believed to be the primary method by which EC works. Lyrl 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

compromise

Sounds good to me. Of course, I can't speak for others. Rick Norwood 15:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Opposition to Homosexuality

Good to meet you, saw you had created the CORE article, as I was going to do, but think I have met you elsewhere. Would you be interested in Opposition to homosexuality?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ros Power (talk • contribs) 23:09, 12 June 2006.

Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board

Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. Thanks. --Facto 05:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Pro-abortion/Pro-choice

Hi Chooserr! Thanks for your message.

I've reviewed my post to Ros, and at no point did I use any terms regarding people being "pro-life", "anti-abortion" or any other term with the meaning implied, that someone was against the practice, theory, option or reality of abortion, medically, non-medically or back-street. My post was specifically about not using the semantically incorrect term "pro-abortion" (which would, by definition, mean being in favour of forcing, compelling or requiring abortion) when the option "pro-choice" (meaning to be in favour of the choice being available to one degree or another to women who may wish or need to use that choice).

Therefore, I'm afraid I don't understand your post to me or the correction to my use of the language. I'd be grateful if you could point me to a diff where I have misused English in the way you seem to be suggesting. Or perhaps your message was meant for any other user talking on that page, who I am not and am not in the position to speak for.

Please bear in mind what I said to Ros - I have very clear political views on abortion, but I have never expressed them on Wikipedia and therefore it is pointless to attempt to project any view point on to me: for the purposes of Wikipedia, I do not have one; in real life I do; but in neither case is anyone aware of what that viewpoint actually is.

Thanks for your time. ➨ ЯЄDVERS 18:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq and the War on Terrorism

Wikipedia:WOT has opened its straw poll, and is open to discussion. Rangeley 01:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Condom usage instruction

Hi Chooserr, I believe the usage instruction at teenwire (which is currently on the article about condoms) is of bad quality. The movie's size is very small and the compression is too high. Therefore I offered this link. I think it is better. Please let me know if I can add the link again.

• • • • • • EDIT ******

Sorry if I do not understand the conventions for posting and reacting on talk pages, but I guessed this is probably the place for you to look most often. The reason I posted the link is twofold.

1. The current movie (there is only one movie with instructions) is very, very bad of quality. Please take a look. The one I suggested is much better and more clear to understand. 2. I know the movie is on the website of a company (The Condomerie), but this movie (and a lot of other information on there website) is not commercial.

Please let me know if we can agree on adding the link (and if needed removing the teenwire link).

Kind regards, --Incorrectio 10:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:TV emma watson on the biography channel.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TV emma watson on the biography channel.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

in re: Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays

just inquiring about the weasel words tag on there? I've read thru it several time and I'm sorry to say cannot see where the error is. Especially as PFLAG is a well know, respectable not to say somewhat timid, conservative organization. Thanks CyntWorkStuff 22:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have carefully reviewed the main PFLAG Site [2] and the weasel words entry and I must respectfully suggest that it's present use to register an individual's political or theological disagreement with the subject of a given article was not it's intended use.

After all you would probably not think it proper for someone to slap a box stating "Important if true" onto the articles on the Roman Catholic sacraments, et. al. CyntWorkStuff 02:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The above "Famous Quote" attributed to the 19th Century British Historian Kinglake, was meant to be a minor joke and since I am Catholic I used my own religion in the example. But it obviously was not quite as amusing or apropos as I had hoped, so never mind.

I'm sorry to say that my first point holds and I do not think that was the use meant for the weasel words tag. Unless you can show me an "approved" example somewhere else, I'm going to copy my reasoning (minus the joke) over to the talk page of the article with the intention of removing the box. Best regards CyntWorkStuff 19:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Condom Usage #2

Hi Chooserr, Thank you for taking a look at the movie with usage instructions. It is better then the one which is on the page at the moment. You can find the instruction movie at http://www.condomerie.com/condoms/condomusage_instruction.php.

Please let me know what you thought about it.

Kind regards,

Benjamin

Thanks for the change!

On your edit in Penis

You changed the image of the erect penis into a link without giving a proper edit summary, without explaining yourself properly on the talk page and disregarding (and removing) the comment from the edit page. Please consider (WP-Template):

Thank you for your attempts to improve Wikipedia. However, I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored for minors, not even for profanity or pornography. You are welcome to remove clearly offensive material or inappropriate obscenities if they were added as vandalism, but please do not remove/censor profanities or remove/disclaim sexually explicit material or links that are relevant to the article. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you!

Mütze 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, but please read what I said here, and let us continue the discussion there:

Talk:Penis#Discussion on the images once again reopened

— Mütze 18:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You

...need to be resume activity. I miss the revolutionary. Elliskev 02:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sanger and abortion

Margaret Sanger promoted spermicides and diaphragms and condoms and was involved in developing the pill. I have never read about her promoting abortion. This does not mean that such information does not exist, but it does mean a citation is needed for the sentence in question. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

PP's primary mission is to provide contraceptive services. That's always been what they do. I just am not convinced that, before Roe v. Wade, they promoted or offered abortion. Particularly considering this diff to the Planned Parenthood article. I hope that clarified my position. Cheers, Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Argyronissos

Hello Chooserr, I've got a question about your article about Argyronissos to you; isn't that article any joke? I want to know because I wrote an article - or translation :) - about that on Polish wikipedia (pl:Argyronissos). That article seems to be a joke, because I think that Argyronissos is a big island (240 km²) and it should be seen on a map, but it isn't seen, for example, on Google Maps or Google Earth. If it isn't joke, please write to me the sources, from which you wrote this article. Thanks in advance for your quick answer (please, respond me on my Polish user talk), and happy Wikipedia Day! Greetings from Poland, Maciek17 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

So, it seems to be a joke on German wiki. The article de:Argyronissos was writed by IP number (1) - you know, IP's very often are making stupid articles - and it was two times qualified to delete this article (2). Maybe it is a mistake; no 240 km², just 2,4 km²... Don't you think? Maciek17 17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not any joke - I talked with German user who wrote on this article that Argyronissos is 240 000m2 big, and he explained me that 240 000 m² isn't 240 km², just 0,24, so it is very small island. By the way, the coordinations are wrong; on Google Maps on that coordinations isn't sea, just land :) Regards, Maciek17 17:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Cov0508.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cov0508.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

question

Would you like to join Conservapedia as a editor? Conservapedia is looking for good editors and Admins. Please send me your email if you want to join Conservapedia. If you feel reticient about giving out your email address you can simply create a new account at hotmail and yahoo so you don't risk getting a lot of junk mail. Regional123 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Regional123

Hi, I wonder if you might be interested in The Catholic Wiki Project? It's a fairly new Catholic POV wiki. Speculative catholic 02:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Image-brown waters.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-brown waters.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:User Lea

A template you created, Template:User Lea, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 00:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Fake buildings on London Underground

Hi, I noticed a Talk Page posting on the Northern line article — see Leinster Gardens about the fake buildings you asked about.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 21:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Homofascism

An article I created, Homofascism, is up for deletion. Please vote as you wish on its AFD page.

Homofascism

An article I created, Homofascism, is up for deletion. Please vote as you wish on its AFD page. --Jakes18 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Student LifeNet

An article that you have been involved in editing, Student LifeNet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student LifeNet (3rd nomination). Thank you. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FSF Aug1960.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FSF Aug1960.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(Belated) Merry Christmas

Just random Christmas greetings. May your upcoming year be blessed.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nova Scotia, New Scottish Speculative Fiction (2005 book) cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nova Scotia, New Scottish Speculative Fiction (2005 book) cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Reproductive Ethics

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Comment on Reproductive Ethics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User fr-X

A tag has been placed on Template:User fr-X requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User no es

A tag has been placed on Template:User no es requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Chooserrwelcome

Template:Chooserrwelcome has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — WOSlinker (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Central Catholic Library (London)

I have nominated Central Catholic Library (London), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Catholic Library (London). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Guy (Help!) 20:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

File:Icecave.jpg

Hi, I came across the file File:Icecave.jpg, which you uploaded to en: wiki it seems. It now sits on Commons, and has "unidentified" categories... could you give a location for this cave? Or any other type of identifying information? Thanks! Deadstar (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Icecave.jpg

.. is nominated for deletion on Commons, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Icecave.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FIYC

Template:FIYC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 22:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Image-brown waters.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Image-brown waters.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Family Life International (New Zealand)

The article Family Life International (New Zealand) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Gets a bunch of WP:GOOGLEHITS, but these seem to be an enormous number of press releases, passing mentions (eg. in lists), unreliable sources, and coincidental juxtapositions of words. Does not have the coverage in reliable sources needed to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG, WP:ORG, etc. Additionally, the article has no citations and is full of promotional language.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Precious Life (organisation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Precious Life (organisation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precious Life (organisation) 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. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:25, 6 February 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 Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Cherish Life Queensland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cherish Life Queensland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherish Life Queensland 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. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Life (UK organisation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Life (UK organisation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life (UK organisation) 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.

Eichhornia Crassipes (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)