User talk:Nirame/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello Nirame, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. kongr43gpen^Talk 14:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea, actually! This isn't really my area of expertise at all. It really depends if there is any coverage; I mean I was struggling to find much about the dress for her first wedding. My "notability" criteria for that was that it was a very public ceremony (the Abbey, millions of TV viewers, etc), but I don't know if there was a great deal of coverage of the second. It's up to you, really, but I'd rather have quality articles on a few noteworthy items than lots of stubs about non-notable dresses. Because the first wedding dress article is quite short, you may find it better to rename that article as "Wedding dresses of Princess Anne" and then have a paragraph about the second wedding as a combined entry. Bob talk 12:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think changing it to dresses plural would work well and descriptions would be easy to make by contrasting them.Nirame (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a website Tudor wiki or something which has some info and images from the remaining missing articles (most of the images are public domain by now and should be uploaded), that's where I got the names from. If you want to cover them I recommend looking it up at least as a starting point. Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this it? http://tudorswiki.sho.com/page/Royal+Weddings There are some great images on there and colour which is a big plus hope we can get them added. Nirame (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Carole Elizabeth Middleton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't revert me - the mail, express and star are not reliable sources, and information from them cannot be included. Ironholds (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello do you deem the telegraph to be acceptable? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8496030/Pippa-Middleton-The-naked-truth.html there are plenty more sources though the ones you take issue with were the first to get it out there. Nirame (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Claudia Beamish, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/membersPages/claudia_beamish/index.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

apologies the article was saved when i wasnt finished

A tag has been placed on Claudia Beamish requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Wilbysuffolk talk 19:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

apologies the article was saved when i wasnt finished.

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Mary Fee, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

as this page was mass tagged due to an error i made on one page aound this time i was glad to see it was kept as clearly notable

A tag has been placed on Mark Griffin (politician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Wilbysuffolk talk 19:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

as this page was mass tagged due to an error i made on one page aound this time i was glad to see it was kept as clearly notable

Hey! Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the job you're trying to do with the MSP articles you've created just now. I guess you'll be adding the Infobox MSP sidebar at some point? Good stuff. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) Yeah whatever filling in whatever bios i can find then and i will be adding infoboxes which i am trying to find free use images for Nirame (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Nirame. Could you please explain to me how this edit improves the article? I'm assuming it must but can't think of a good reason. Rivertorch (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there all of the other bullying suicide article link to find a grave and i find that to be perfectly apropriate given that they are notable for their deaths. I noticed Tylers article had not linked to his so i added it. Nirame (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. It does seem a bit morbid, especially in the context of his renown being entirely posthumous and his being more victim than celebrity, but I can't really see any harm. Thanks for explaining. Rivertorch (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted all the articles where you removed the cateory "horse breeds" and replaced it with various national origins. The issue of which nation "claims" a horse breed is very controversial within WikiProject Equine (due to historical boundary changes and political considerations) so we prefer to keep ALL the breeds in the main category. If various editors insist on national origins, we have not the time or energy to fight it constantly, but it causes organizational difficulties in tracking the breed articles in general, so we discourage it. So please leave them be. Montanabw^(talk) 19:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

They state country of origin clearly with sources in the articles though. Plenty of them arent of places of origin subject to boundry changes so why revert them en masse without checking each one? Several of the changes were removing the animals of ... categories where the articles were already in subcategories. if you want horse breeds in one category do that but there are many there with no disputes about orgin countries so surely they are fine in those categories as well. Lumping them all together due to only some being disputed is rather inaccurate as is having them all in the parent category when they are also in its subcategories.

In addition for any which may have a dispute explain the historical boundaries and articles can easily be put in the categories for all the possible areas. similar to what they do with pre united germany artices and dog articles with multiple countries possible.

Please take this issue to WikiProject Equine. (WP:EQUINE). Basically, I'm personally not going to kick about adding 20,000 different nations to the categories as long as the main horse breeds category is not removed, (you changed so many at once without any discussion and yes, you got reverted en masse). But I do think it's a bit silly: some breeds, like the Lipizzan, for example, can legitimately be "claimed" by about six different nations, which can get to the point of ridiculous. Or take the Azteca, which developed about equally from the US and Mexico, derived from Spanish horses... Even the International Museum of the Horse only classifies horse breeds by continent of origin and doesn't take it down any narrower. But my only issue here is that we cannot keep the horse breeds articles organized without the umbrella category being kept intact. So that's my main stake. I guess if people want to add six different nations, category clutter isn't my concern. Montanabw^(talk) 19:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If your only issue was the main horse breeds category then it would perhaps have been more sensible just to add that one back. Your examples of many countries origin horses are good and they are also articles i didnt touch. i only added them into ones with clear origins referenced and stated. I shan't remove the main cat from any articles if that is your preference.Nirame (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are creating all these categories, can you add WPEQ tags to their category talk pages then? See what I did at Category talk:Horse breeds originating in Scotland. That would be helpful and much appreciated. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 19:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure i would be happy to do that :)Nirame (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, if an apparent "breed" article isn't already tagged with the horse breed category, it probably isn't a "real" breed by the modern definition, note where I reverted you. We really DO go through these very carefully! There's sort of an explanation at List of horse breeds where we try to explain the categories. Horses are a lot more complicated than dog breeds, I think. Montanabw^(talk) 03:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And please don't chop the extinct "breeds" section. We need it. We may need to rename it, but we need that category to distinguish types and breeds of extant horses (equus caballus) from those that don't exist any more. The concept of a "breed" as we know it today really only formed in the 1700s, so animals developed before then didn't necessarily fit our modern definition, hence we used "types." The one weird one in all of this is the Tarpan, which was a subspecies that became extinct in relatively modern times (late 1800s), unlike other paleolithic wild horses that became extinct prior to recorded history or the remaining one (Przewalski's horse) that's survived into the present time. Montanabw^(talk) 03:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nirame,

You are screwing up the horse categorization system now. Can you PLEASE stop and take this to a discussion with the people who know the topic? Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's crystal clear disambiguation protocols. Do not move any more articles until and unless you are fully up to speed. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

as on DAB it says this

"Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be."

"as shown in the talk page in the news sources i added he is generally refered to by the full title i changed the page to.

lets try google for example

"alex neil politician" 4 results (0.11 seconds)

"alex neil msp" 205,000 results (0.09 seconds)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carole Elizabeth Middleton 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/Carole Elizabeth Middleton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

gladly the article wasnt deletedNirame (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Kezia Dugdale requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Wilbysuffolk talk 19:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

as this page was mass tagged due to an error i made on one page aound this time i was glad to see it was kept as clearly notableNirame (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Mary Fee requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Wilbysuffolk talk 19:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

as this page was mass tagged due to an error i made on one page aound this time i was glad to see it was kept as clearly notableNirame (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Neil Findlay requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Wilbysuffolk talk 19:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

as this page was mass tagged due to an error i made on one page aound this time i was glad to see it was kept as clearly notableNirame (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you indicate if this is still a GAR issue or if it has now moved to an editing discussion on the article talkpage? If it is still a GAR issue I'd like to see where you feel the article is not meeting the GA criteria. If it's no longer a GAR issue, I will close the discussion. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I kind of think that it isn't needed to have "wild horse" replace "horse" in the species and subspecies categories, as at the species level, they are one and the same. We can comment on the nomenclature issues in the cat page, but I really think these just need to be "horse" when we are working at the equus ferus level. The idea here is to help people find articles, and this confuses them. We spend enough time around here explaining the difference between wild and feral horses as it is.  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 18:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Should be doable if it is explained in the category text alright. I had made the first lot but then thought the second namings looked more accurate.Nirame (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you might be the right person for the following job: Take a look at the articles equidae and equus (genus) and compare them to the articles contained in the same-named categories ([[Category:Equidae]] and [[Category:Equus]]). It looks to me like a lot of the articles tagged in the equidae cat need to move over to equus category, and sme vice-versa, plus based on these two templates: Template:Equidae extinct nav and Template:Perissodactyla, some of the existing articles that belong in equidae aren't there at all. In general, I think these categories are completely screwed up (gutteral pouch?). You are actually the right person for this job, given your work with the horse breeds by nations stuff, because you are good at gleaning the content from the article. We at WPEQ lean on Kim to review taxonomy stuff, so as long as she agrees we have it right, you'll have a pretty free rein to clean up these species cats, as at WPEQ we've tended to focus more on the breeds and types within just caballus, and, occasionally, the donkey articles. Oh, also look at Odd-toed ungulate, which might be the most comprehensive article... Montanabw^(talk) 18:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure i shall have a look through that Nirame (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

hi just in case you wondered why i edited your text you had included the categories in a way that meant my talk page was now in the categories so i just put in the nowiki tagsNirame (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I think another way we can do this without having it pop into a cat page (maybe check this out) is to format it this way: Category:Horses Montanabw^(talk) 15:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That works perfectly thanksNirame (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sheeps? rally? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Sorry for the typo but at least it was a cute typo.Nirame (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to put citation tags in every paragraph of an article, in fact, it screws up some of the category cleanup programs (for example, a long stub suddenly comes up as a panic that would be more appropriate for a GA nominee). Instead, an overall cleanup tag at the top is a lot better. For example, {{nocitations]], {[unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, etc. There are a ton more you can find in the help pages, including ones where you can tag just one section. You could also consider going out and finding some sources and adding citations; we already know there are a lot of stub and start-class articles in WPEQ, only about 350-400 horse breeds alone... all actual help is always welcomed! Montanabw^(talk) 01:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I do add sources where i find them and i also find it useful having the citation needed bits in various parts of an article so the text immediately around it can be used as a starting point for finding the refs and the citation needed marker is where the found source would be put. the citation needed parts are also useful for encouraging passing through wiki users to notice and add sources rather than just one big one at the topNirame (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You might "like" to do that, but it's not the best practice on wikipedia. Excess templating is frowned upon, I don't understand all the technical details on markup syntax, but basically templates slow things down a bit, so unless they are actually helpful, don't overdo it. When there are NO refs, or very few, one tag is all you need. Any idiot knows WHERE to put a citation, to tag every paragraph implies you are working with fourth-graders. Montanabw^(talk) 15:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You have your prefernces on how to work I have mine it isn't an absolute rule Nirame (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, it's not "my preference," it's a wikipedia guideline, quite clearly explained: Template:Citation_needed#When_not_to_use_this_template: "This template is intended for specific passages that need citation. For entire articles or sections that contain significant material lacking sources (rather than just specific short passages), there are other, more appropriate templates, such as {{Unreferenced}} or {{Refimprove}}." You might also like to look at Template:Citation needed. One can be very creative with just one template. Montanabw^(talk) 18:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So your account is now blocked indefinitely, since Crazyhorselady (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed per checkuser, as also being your account. Same with a number of IP addresses which did pretty-much the same thing. So whatever about the alleged personal information you've been revealing about another editor, it's particularly sneaky (and cowardly) to go fire up a sock account to do your dirty work for you. Hence the block here, per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information. I don't care whether the information you posted was self-revealed, or whether it's accurate, etc, etc - what I really don't like is your abuse of multiple accounts here to mess around with another editor you'd had a disagreement with. Cowardly and underhanded - Alison ^❤ 09:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Should this ever get reviewed I would be happy to take on a total subject ban and avoid the user in question completely. Otherwise thanks to everyone who has been helpful to me and good bye.Nirame (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to get your block reviewed (and any admin can feel free to overturn this checkuser block if they see fit), you can use the unblock template and state your case. Here's the template + details how;

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alison ^❤ 10:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And please don't just log out to edit around your block, like you just did - Alison ^❤ 10:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I had noticed an error and corrected it. I saw i was not logged in in the edit history so i logged in and got the alert that i had a new message here. Note the edit was made then i logged inNirame (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So i should use the template above and explain that I apologise for my actions and would not repeat the and that to ensure that I would go by a topic ban and totally avoid the other user and stick to editing through this one account alone.Nirame (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I'm not going to unblock - someone else can review - but yes. Fill out the template as shown and add your comments as to why you should be unblocked. Read the links above, too. Then another admin will show up and review the situation - Alison ^❤ 10:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helpful with that and being more fair with me than I deserve. I shall think about it for a bit before I do request anything.Nirame (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Fictional Alabama Crimson Tide football players, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. — Scientizzle 14:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No issue with deleting the category as long as the the article is not moved back into Category:Alabama Crimson Tide football players with real life players. The article is already in the fictional football players category so that should suffice. Nirame (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Forrest Gump (character) shouldn't be in a category for real people. Perhaps a hidden comment to that effect might be worth leaving in the article? — Scientizzle 13:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds a very good idea, placing in at the start of the categories would show it to anyone editing them.Nirame (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Not surprised you're blocked given your lack of sense. How is naming a WP bio by the person's middle name, instead of a common WP disambiguation, helpful? (Funny how failure to have sense in one aspect tends to do so in a mumber.) Mike Russell the tennis player is likely of Scottish ancerstry - too bad there is no source, despite his middle name being the 'b'ry Scottish Crrraig'. Mayumashu (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. KarlB (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. - MrX 02:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:English politicians of South Asian descent, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Rathfelder (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Duck breeds originating in England indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Duck breeds originating in Wales indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Pigeon breeds originating in Scotand indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Puerto Rican psychics indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 20:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The redirect Harley Quinn (pornographic actor) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 27 § Harley Quinn (pornographic actor) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)