User talk:Colonel Warden

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6

Page views

These are the page views for my user page.

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Orville

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	This comment was hilarious. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For more LOLcats, see cats in popular culture... Warden (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KunstRAI

Hi: I have just seen that you had Orville (cat) userfied. I created an article on the art fair yesterday - with about a line and a half on the Orvillecopter. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well done. Great minds think alike, eh? Warden (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the greenhouse

That was kind of a low blow, Colonel--or an attempt at one, since I don't think it really landed anywhere. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable to see even a true scholar such as LH under attack, this place gets more surreal by the day. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Be that as it may, this reminds me that Orville appeared in Time Out yesterday. He shall rise again! Did one of you mopperaars take a picture while he was on display? Warden (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm--haven't heard mopperaar in three decades or more. Nice old-fashioned word, Colonel, and a nice find. No, I was not around when the cat flew: I'm just another poor expatriate. Speaking of deletions, Chonga could do with your help. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Colonel Warden/Orville (cat)

User:Colonel Warden/Orville (cat), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/Orville (cat) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Colonel Warden/Orville (cat) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big bird

I just saw that there's a sequel: Dutch artist turns dead ostrich into a helicopter. Not as cool as the cat, though, I reckon. Warden (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

FYI, it looks like this IP is running roughshod over some of your recent edits. I've reported to AIV and will go through the changes to correct, as warranted. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. To double-check, the articles that they vandalised were:

1. Albannach (band) ‎Y
2. Albannach (restaurant) ‎Y
3. Andrew Soltis Y
4. Eight-thousander ‎Y
5. Exploding animal ‎Y
6. Ferret legging ‎Y
7. Luck of Edenhall ‎Y
8. Mazumbai warty frog ‎Y
9. Music of World War I Y
10. Nice guy Y
11. Royal Gibraltar Yacht Club ‎Y
12. Richard ‎Y
13. Stonewalling ‎Y
14. Talk:Ferret legging/GA2 ‎Y
15. Talk:Music of World War I ‎Y
16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oddjob's hat Y

Their MO seems to have been to look at my last 500 edits and then pick some at random to undo. They all seemed to have been cleaned up now - thanks again. Warden (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar activity by 82.26.134.207 and 86.31.81.81 has been reverted. Warden (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was nothing; I was just cleaning up after the vandal who was after your heels for whatever reason. Thanks! bibliomaniac15 19:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions

Files

• Tweed Run London 2013
• Dunkerton hill in 1853
• John Shand

Babymoon

Why did you remove the PROD at Babymoon? — O'Dea (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CONTESTED that's how one objects to a prod - by removing it. Warden (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...I never PRODed anything before so I assumed there would be more to it than someone simply removing the PROD. Why did you contest it? You indicated no reason in your edit summary, so there was no apparent counterargument to my objection that the entry offered nothing substantial beyond what is in Wiktionary. — O'Dea (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am still interested in your reason for contesting the PROD. — O'Dea (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis-associated respiratory disease

My alarm bell started ringing when I observed you discussing me with Viriditas. Did you know that he was recently blocked for such behaviour?

Would you like to retract that wacky statement, or should I take this straight to ANI, where I will ask for you to be schooled in the appropriate method of canvassing users for Xfd (a method you refuse to acknowledge), and where I will take you to task for making crazy statements like this one? Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion in question was closed earlier today and may no longer be changed. Regarding your block (15:23, 13 May 2013), I was going by the edit summary which said, "feuding with another editor, persistently making unsubstantiated accusations, and other disruptive editing". I am not familiar with the details of your case. Were you exonerated? Warden (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia isn't a court of law and I don't agree with the edit summary of that block log. But assume it is true for the sake of argument; what does it have to do with the deletion discussion and your comment? Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dead cat

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dead cat 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/Dead cat 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hater

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hater (Internet) 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/Hater (Internet) 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. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discourse) 20:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hue and cry

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Natural Color System. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said, ""Purple should please provide an example of a contradiction as currently their !vote contains no evidence to support that vehement assertion and so seems quite misleading."

1. It's not "vehement"
2. An example of such a contradiction was mentioned in the AfD nomination

My vote is not misleading, and I will not retract it pbp 19:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ilsa, the Wicked Warden

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ilsa, the Wicked Warden 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/Ilsa, the Wicked Warden 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. Thincat (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Killer toys

Hello, regarding the article killer toys, I have overhauled it and have provided a more limited list with all entries backed by reliable sources. I've commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer toys. I hope you will take a look at the new list and my comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix

Hi, you've indicated a possibility of merging, if you need a userfied or e-mailed copy of the deleted article to salvage some content for a merge, just let me know. Salvidrim! ✉ 00:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball players who died during their careers

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of baseball players who died during their careers 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/List of baseball players who died during their careers 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. ...William 14:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of honest politicians

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of honest politicians 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/List of honest politicians 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 template from the top of the article. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 23:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to tone it down. You know perfectly well that I don't even vote in half the things ARS tags for rescue, and probably in a third of the ones I do vote in, I vote something other than delete. And most of the other people who have voted in this discussion have even less contact with the ARS than I do. Your page is going to be deleted because it's even more subjective and POV-pushing than the political criminals page that was recently deleted. Frankly, you should have stopped work on the honest politicians page once you knew that political criminals was going down to delete (which was fairly evident DAYS before the close), because there is no possible way that honest politicians could be kept while political criminals was deleted. Shame on you. pbp 20:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• PBP, as a friend and fellow sports editor, I would suggest that everyone needs to "tone it down" in this discussion. It's blazingly apparent that much of the underlying animus in the AfD discussion has little to do with the present AfD and more with the history of interaction among several of the AfD participants. I would urge you, the Colonel and everyone else to strike whatever personal comments appear here and in the AfD as evidence of everyone's good faith and desire to address this AfD in the best interests of the project. Best regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Warden, would you be willing to consider the suggestions I have made in the AfD discussion to restructure this list and better define the list's criteria for inclusion? If so, I'm prepared to register a "keep" !vote subject to those caveats. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I am willing. We can't lightly make big changes while the AFD is running though. Warden (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood, Colonel. I am voting to "keep" subject to those caveats. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vital articles

I just saw this MfD, and I am appalled by what you did. Why did you nominate it for deletion when it was in the middle of a full lock? You never bothered to even tag the article that an MfD was going on. And how did you find your way there, anyway? pbp 04:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would've said delete had I noticed it. That is ridiculous. People just argue over who they like the best to put on that list. This isn't a fan site. Dream Focus 11:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page exists on Meta and on a whole bunch of Wikis, and Warden should've done his homework to figure it. The point is it's bad form to not tag the project, or to mention that its up for MfD on the talk page of the project. Dream, you argued when that stupid Rescue list template was nominated for deletion. pbp 02:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course anything that is nominated for deletion, should have a notice placed on it. Ridiculous that that isn't automatic. Still, that is a pretty pointless and bias list you have there. Should've been deleted. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Dream Focus 02:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you think it should be deleted, man up and start a discussion on Meta (obviously, re-nomming here now would be disruptive). Alternately, you could participate in the discussions on WP:VA and WP:VA/E to stop the list from being bias (FYI, bias is a noun, not an adjective). But if you're just going to continue your brinkmanship without actually doing anything... pbp 03:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why would I want to waste time arguing over something so insignificant? Most people won't even ever notice it exist. They should just rename it "what a handful of people have decided are the best articles on Wikipedia" to make it clearer what it is. Calling it Wikipedia:Vital articles is rather misleading. I have a list of my favorite Wikipedia articles on my user page User:Dream_Focus#Articles_I_find_of_interest, but I never tried to claim they were anything other than my personal favorites, or put the list anywhere other than its proper place on my own user page. Dream Focus 19:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I took an interest because the page was listed at centralised discussion by user:NickPenguin. Twinkle was unable to add a template to the page because it had been protected by user:Bbb23 to stop edit-warring by user:Purplebackpack89 and others. I'm not sure what they were disputing then but the issue now seems to be whether the horse is vital or not. Lame. Warden (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, Warden, I think the list of 1,000 is a fun exercise in prioritizing 1,000 important and representative topics from human history, culture and endeavors. Given your eclectic academic interests, I'm mildly surprised that you're not interested in participating. The discussion could use someone with your background. To each their own, I suppose. As for the horse, I'm pretty sure with your grasp of history that you do understand the importance of equus ferus caballus in the development of human civilization. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. It involves the discussion above partially. Dream Focus 19:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a courtesy, your name has been mentioned by two users here on AN/I. I don't believe your comment is necessary, but you have been mentioned :) gwickwire^talk_editing 20:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice DreamFocus kinda notified you above.. Sorry :) Just making sure you knew (and that's kind of hidden so..) gwickwire^talk_editing 20:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks to you both but that discussion seems to be closed. I do have a nice quip which is a shame to waste though: "purple is the new black". Geddit? Warden (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I added a pic of one of our old friends predecessors to an article only a couple of weeks back. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas grotto

Why did you give such a jokey "speedy keep" rationale? If you think it's keepable, be serious. Ten Pound Hammer • ^(What did I screw up now?) 01:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a laughing gnome. Warden (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're being a little too hostile in the other AFDs of mine you're participating in. Making snide jokey remarks is no better. Ten Pound Hammer • ^(What did I screw up now?) 17:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing personal - see another fresh AFD where I give DGG's nomination a rough ride — volenti non fit injuria. As for gnomes, they were a hit for David Bowie, who was all over the media recently, and they are now being featured in this year's Chelsea Flower Show. Synchronicity... Warden (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of roads in Ipoh

	The Special Barnstar
	For your great work on List of roads in Ipoh, Very impressed! :) – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. It took a fair bit of effort but there's still quite a lot more to be done. I tend to lose momentum once the AFD is resolved but your barnstar will give me a second wind. Warden (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your work. About the map provided with the article: I have seen similar ones, variously dated; how did you arrive at "1921"? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.148.75 (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of a Small Town

User:Colonel Warden/Secrets of a Small Town, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/Secrets of a Small Town (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Colonel Warden/Secrets of a Small Town during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beerest355 Talk 19:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have responded at the discussion. Warden (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Secrets of a Small Town 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/Secrets of a Small Town (2nd nomination) 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. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sins

Category:Sins, 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. Kaldari (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Gibbs (schoolboy)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Gibbs (schoolboy) 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/William Gibbs (schoolboy) 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. Horologium (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

§==Arbitration==

ARS

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Article Rescue Squadron and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ^21 16:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGK

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Use of admin tools by AGK and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Sorry, wasn't sure whether to add you or not but it was over reverts on your talk page so I suspect your input would be useful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks though the matter does not seem to warrant an arbcom case — aquila non capit muscas. The incident seemed quite mysterious initially but I am developing a theory which may explain it. More anon. Warden (talk) 08:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH re muscas, the arb committee is the one and only place to review admin tools, by our current guidelines. And if other folks see the episode as acceptable then I stand corrected with no hard feelings. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration request involving you (Use of admin tools by AGK) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww and The Rambling Man

Hi Colonel Warden, in the open Kww and The Rambling Man arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the notification. I have nothing to add at this time. Warden (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Guppy page - request for input

Good day, Colonel Warden. Please see my comments on the Darius Guppy Talk page which are self-explanatory, (11th, 14th and 17th Feb 2018). On the Main Page I attempted to post a version (suggested by another editor) which is in essence a pruned down version of the page as it developed over the years from your original template (See History, version dated 17th February 2018). “Wormwood” who very obviously has an axe to grind against Mr Guppy, has attempted to block any version apart from his own and has now blocked my ip address. (For which reason my use of a new IP, but to avoid confusion I will sign henceforth as “Chortle”). He even makes the absurd suggestion that I am in fact the same editor as the writer of the comment from ip address 176.61.106.16 dated 21st February 2018 (“ip hopping”). The location of that address is in Ireland as any reader can easily verify. By typing in that same address in the top right hand bar and doing a search, again anyone can see that the same editor last commented on this particular article in June of 2017. So unless I jumped on a plane and somehow got to this person's pc to write a comment on this article when I could just as easily have written it from a neighbour's house then the allegation is illogical and further underscores Wormwod’s obsession with the subject of the article. In fact it is Wormwood’s commenting which deserves scrutiny. By his own admission on the Darius Guppy Talk page he retired (immediately after registering as a User) “except for this article” out of over five and a half million articles on the English version of Wikipedia. Further investigation on the timing of his comments is equally revealing. They occur almost immediately after anyone else's edit, almost as if he is sitting by the computer with nothing else to do except wait for a comment to appear on Mr Guppy. All of which illustrates rather the spooky obsession which I (and a couple of other editors) have picked up on and which he has done nothing to disprove. You may care to step in. My argument is firstly that he has explained nowhere his own obvious personal interest. But, more importantly, he has explained nowhere why well-reported and well-referenced facts which have been added to by consensus over many years and which explain the public interest in the subject of the article should be ignored. There are thousands of trials taking place in England every day and there are thousands of telephone conversations such as the one between Boris Johnson and Mr Guppy that occur every day too. Someone goes to jail and he's riled because a person has been nasty to his family and he wants to get even. So what? Why aren't millions of similar incidents given a page on Wikipedia? Clearly there was something special about these incidents which made them the subject of such media interest. What though? To a great extent the very parts which for whatever reason Wormwood wishes to exclude answer these questions: the man's background, his connections, his motives, the nature of the events themselves, the views of the prosecution and trial judge, his personality etc, all of which you referred to in your version. He has argued nowhere why such significant facts should be omitted while trivia such as what clubs he was a member of at University should be included. Having read the relevant articles on Consensus and BLP I can see no way in which the article as I have posted it on 17th February contravenes Wikipedia policy. It is almost as if Wormwood is attempting to establish a monopoly over the article itself, for whatever reason. Your input as a more neutral editor seems appropriate. Signed: Chortle

RfA

Bilby

Did you intend to !vote "Oppose" rather than "Keep"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My fingers are too used to typing that string :). I have amended my !vote - thanks for pointing it out. Warden (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've changed the * at the start of your post to a #. If you really intended a *, feel free to revert me. Peridon (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It only matters if there are more opposes but that's fine. Warden (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, that's what I guessed. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1

Thank you for your support and kind comment in my RfA, Colonel Warden. It was a pleasant surprise. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. I was not familiar with your work here but browsed your contributions for a month and formed the impression that you were strong-willed but also communicated and consulted well. The leavening of humour and wit is most welcome too. Warden (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it did not end particularly well, but I thank you for taking the time to do your own analysis and for your willingness to see past much of the "smoke" that was generated. Votes like yours meant a lot to me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelapstick

Howdy. With regards to your oppose in Kelapstick's RFA, when you said "slight" were you referring to quality or quantity?--Rockfang (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Both. I have added more specific detail. Warden (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you! For helping with List of dresses

Thanks!

occono (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks but I'm allergic to cats. I will find it a good home. Warden (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYKs

Soho Pam

On 2 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Soho Pam, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Soho Pam liked to give her patrons a cuddle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Soho Pam. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^The muffin is not subtle 08:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ring of Silvianus

Do you think it ought to go up for DYK? It really needs a picture!

Amandajm (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems suitable for DYK. I have added an image. Warden (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have put it up for DYK. Thanks for the image. I don't think it's clear enough for the front page though! Cheers! Amandajm (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A picture is worth 1000 words and so it seems good that we have one where possible. I may visit the exhibition to see the ring for myself but it's not clear whether photography is permitted and it's usually not easy if the exhibit is in a glass case. It may be possible to do more with the image that we have. I cropped it and autoadjusted the brightness and contrast but have no special competence in this. Here's the original:

Warden (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can send more info and images if you want as I did the original research which the press releases come from. You are also welcome to visit and if you want to contact us here at the Vyne to arrange it you can. I can also provide a couple more references for you but had trouble updating the page myself.

The original Chaloner Chute info is from Chute's History of The Vyne 1888. Paul Corbey Finney wrote an article ' Senicianus Ring' - this is what it was known as before 'The Vyne' Ring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer2711 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ring of Silvianus, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the cursed Ring of Silvianus (pictured) may have inspired J. R. R. Tolkien to write The Hobbit? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ring of Silvianus. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinaman (porcelain)

As a participant in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinaman (porcelain), please see Talk:Chinaman (porcelain)#Merge discussion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you nominated this for DYK. One of the DYK requirements is that an article must have a minimum of 1500 prose characters, but this only has 1357. Whoever reviews your nomination will point out that it's not eligible until it's been further expanded. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the warning. I have added a paragraph to the article, which should suffice, and will continue to develop it. Warden (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chinaman (porcelain), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that an apprentice chinaman (business card pictured) only earned about £25 a year in the 18th century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chinaman (porcelain). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

On 11 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chinaman (porcelain), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that chinamen (card pictured) formed a ring at the auctions of the East India Company? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chinaman (porcelain). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Altaic Languages

Thank you for you effort on the Altaic Languages Talk page. The gang controlling that page is lovely to deal with, aren't they. Are you available to continuing working on this? I've figured out what I was doing wrong, and how to do things right as the next steps. My previous account has been banned through some Wikipedia administrative perversity. So just respond here. Thanks, formerly AltaicNPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.26.150 (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal but we might as well get it right. As the article is locked for a week please focus upon getting a proper account as you will not be taken seriously until you do. The account name should not promote a particular agenda or cause as single-purpose accounts are not much respected either. Warden (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK if you have any time to follow up that would be great. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.28.171 (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes

Thank you very much for the barnstar! It is good to hear that my hatnotes are appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are more!? I shall look out for them... Warden (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, Foster's Release, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Foster's Release" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 18:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business tourism and travel

Feel free to split them, through I don't think the sources are very clear on the difference. That's the reason I merged those topics: a number of sources seem to consider those two terms interchangeable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Idiom dictionary

Hello! Your submission of Idiom dictionary at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Idiom dictionary, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the first major idiom dictionary of American English was created for deaf people? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Idiom dictionary. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Might want to check WT:DYK too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden, please explain. Idiom_dictionary Tony (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have commented at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Idiom dictionary. Warden (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surfers Paradise Meter Maids

Hi Colonel Warden! The Surfers Paradise Meter Maids is great - I've never been up to Queensland, (or at least, not on the coast), so I haven't seen them, but I remember them hitting the news a few times. And it does look like Akubra could do with some work - I'll see if I can help. In regards to the RfA, I had no problems at all with your vote - I agree that we should be wary of giving one side in a dispute an advantage, and it was a good reminder never, under any circumstances, to use the tools while involved. So I felt that you were completely right to raise the issue.

I'll see what I can did up for Akubra, and I might be able to find something for the Meter Maids - I have access to the databases of Australian media, so there might be something to help develop it some more. - Bilby (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it. Akubra is on my watchlist too now. See you around... Warden (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Surfers Paradise Meter Maids, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Surfers Paradise Meter Maids. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Allen3 ^talk 11:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had to chuckle

... when I read your comment at WP:TFAR! Bencherlite^Talk 14:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad you liked it. There's many a true word spoken in jest, eh? Warden (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice work in expanding the Workmanship article and in the addition of sources to qualify the topic's notability. A fine example of workmanship in progress. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I plan to read Pye's The Nature and Art of Workmanship, as it sounds excellent and so may help both the article and my work. Warden (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I touched upon the topic while doing a source search/review. Workmanship is actually quite significant; within the notion of workmanship in general, there is always the potential for improvements and advances, which when realized then also becomes workmanship. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A most well deserved barn star Colonel! Thanks so much for saving the article from deletion. Can't believe deletionists wanted to destroy it, it deserves to be a core article in any encyclopedia, and is especially important for us as it has such a strong bearing on the motivation of editors.

I know a little bit about this topic, as my mistress Simone Weil said that understanding the spiritual aspects of work is key to a rejuvenation of society, and that elucidating the nature of workmanship is the one great philosophical task left to the West (she thinks everything else worthwhile was done by Greeks).

So, I took the liberty of expanding. Obviously, no objection to you completely reverting my work if you intended to take the article in a different direction.

Here's an interesting quote on the subject from Alexandre Kojève. Im not sure about including it in the article as that might be rather elitist, he's sometimes even harder to understand than Hegel. (although most of this quote is already in a web article in one of the citations) But I rather think this gets to the heart of the matter about why workmanship is so important.

“

The man who works recognizes his own product in the World that has actually been transformed by his work: he recognizes himself in it, he sees in it his own human reality, in it he discovers and reveals to others the objective reality of his humanity, of the originally abstract and purely subjective idea he has of himself. ... It is by work, and only by work, than man realizes himself objectively as man.

”

FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You are too modest. You've done a great job of putting flesh on the bones of that topic — something which I considered, but couldn't manage at the time. You deserve a barnstar too so let's see what I can work up. Warden (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dog and Duck

I have reverted your edits here, no idea why you thought overwriting an article on the TV show with one on a pub was a good idea, that's basic stuff. GiantSnowman 08:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at length at the AFD. Warden (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've found an 1878 book online with a lot about the tavern so I've been adding lurid detail (and another image) to the article. Now, at DYK someone is questioning your hook so you could try something like

• that the riff-raff and scum of the town who frequented the Dog and Duck (pictured) caused it to lose its licence?

and that is well-cited online. I'm not sure of DYK etiquette so I haven't butted in there myself. Thincat (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen I've duplicated your content about the sign in the hospital wall. Anyway, there's a picture now. Please sort my stuff out if you like or I'll do something tomorrow. Perhaps the article needs a lead and the sections reorganising somehow. BTW at the AFD I was sorely tempted to !vote

• Merge all to Dogs and Ducks

but I wasn't quite brave enough! Thincat (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. The page still needs lots of work but I am too busy currently to give this topic my full attention and just had to get it to DYK before the 5 day window closed. The hook comes from the words of Alderman Crosby, "a house in which gangs of both whores and rogues were constantly associated", and I've put a quote in now. I especially framed the hook to start with the words "rogues and whores" because I reckon this will bring in the crowds. I'm not sure that riff-raff would be so attractive as Americans might not understand it. Warden (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I understand the rush. "Rogues and whores" is better and they seem to have both in America. I'll do a bit more on the article but just revert anything that's no good. Thincat (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case you had lost all hope, Dog and Duck (tavern) is now on its way to DYK in queue 6.[1] I'm really pleased it has got the top picture spot because the image shows up very well even at small scale. Thincat (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been keeping an eye on its progress - thanks for helping expedite this. I agree that getting top billing is good - I was disappointed that Surfers Paradise Meter Maids didn't have its image displayed as I expected that to be a big draw. I have a bit more content to add to the article so I'll try to squeeze that in soon. Warden (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dog and Duck (tavern), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the rogues and whores who frequented the Dog and Duck (pictured) caused it to lose its licence? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dog and Duck (tavern). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fons Hickmann

Sources. Where are they? Are you expecting them to add themselves? That clearly didn't work last time, since in the four years since the first AFD, not a single one's been added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^(What did I screw up now?) 07:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the following assistance to the article's talk page. If you want to cite sources for particular facts, then you'll find plenty there. Guidance on citations is at WP:CITE. If you're expecting me to do the work for you, note that, in the recent similar case of missed connection, I exerted myself to improve the article and didn't get so much as a thank-you from anyone. See the magic word. Warden (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Your comment on the MOS:LQ thread

I notice that you say you prefer British/L-style punctuation because of accuracy. Have you ever seen American style cause an error or other problem? This question is not rhetorical. It would be relevant to the discussion at hand. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A misquotation is an error. Such errors may have further consequences where rigour is important, such as law or computing. Warden (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Have you ever seen American punctuation cause a misquotation? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "What hath God wrought"! Warden (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Animal transportation AfD

I do wish you hadn't rewritten this article. If we'd deleted the old one first, then you could just have easily have posted your new content then. As it is now it's proving impossible to prune the over-detailed joke garbage about tapirs. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As I understand it, the whimsical content about seals and goats has been put up and deleted before so deletion seems ineffective in achieving your goal. Warden (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Garvey

Just seen your comments here about articles I have created. If you feel that any articles I have created are non-notable I suggest you take them to AFD. Regards, GiantSnowman 14:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of my talk-page stalkers, this refers to pages such as Adam Mitchell (footballer born 1994). This is a footballer who seems to have a page by dint of playing a few minutes as a substitute in one game: "He won a call-up to the first team for the final game of the 2012-13 season, appearing as a late substitute against Spurs." That seems to be a plausible case of BLP1E but I know better than to waste my time arguing with football fans. And the existence of the page doesn't bother me at all. The point, of course, is that editors who create such pages should not argue for the deletion of pages about even more notable people. See WP:SAUCE.

But really we British shouldn't bicker at a time like this. Did you see Andy Murray's triumph just now? Tennis is the game of the moment!

Warden (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell is notable, whether you like it or not - just as Garvey is notable, whether I like it or not. And yes, I saw the tennis, wonderful stuff. GiantSnowman 18:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, I consider your closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Garvey (2nd nomination) to be improper because it doesn't meet the criteria for non-admin closure pbp 03:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Close reverted. Let's let someone who is a) uninvolved and b) an admin close this one. GiantSnowman 08:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the consequence was ... another nomination and DRV. And the world said, "Obvious Trolling is Obvious". Warden (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciations

I added that fine source to Money as Debt. Keen eyes, thank you. Schmidt, ^Michael Q. 16:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. I must watch the film now myself, to see what all the fuss is about... Warden (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Hendricks

I forgot she dyed! NorthernThunder (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your free Cochrane account is on its way!

Please fill out this very short form to receive your free access to Cochrane Collaboration's library of medical reviews: Link to form.

If you have any questions, just ask me. Cheers, Ocaasi 13:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Question about a PROD

So, I added a proposed deletion to Mighty Ape, and you removed it (diff). You didn't provide a reason in the edit summary, so I'm asking you here: why did you deprod it? I'm not planning on replacing the Prod, nor do I think you removed it improperly, I'm just wondering about your reason for doing so. Howicus (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Howicus: I patrol the CAT:ALLPROD, looking for articles which seem viable, and this topic seemed fairly notable. That's all. Warden (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I figured it was something like that. Now the question is, do I care enough to go to AfD...Howicus (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond fandom

Any particular reason you removed the proposed deletion of the article James Bond fandom? It has not been improved and it has no references showing its notability. IsaacAA (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@IsaacAA You don't seem to understand the WP:PROD process which is only for uncontroversial housekeeping, "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected." See also WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the tag after the seven days were up. There was no opposition in the required seven-day period. The article creator and main contributor was informed. A deletion reason was given. The policy was followed properly. My issue here is that the article has been kept with no actual demonstration of notability. IsaacAA (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The timing is unimportant. Any article deleted as a result of WP:PROD may be restored per WP:REFUND. The process is only for cases where there is likely to be no opposition. Cases such as the fandoms for 50-year phenomena like Doctor Who and James Bond are not appropriate for this. Demonstrations of notability seem unnecessary per WP:OBVIOUS. That's why you are being ignored. Please let it go. Warden (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you'd like to provide some references to show the notability of the James Bond fandom in the AfD discussion. IsaacAA (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TTN

Glossary of His Dark Materials terminology

It seemed more discrete to respond to your comments here. I recognised a 'slash and burn' mentality from some comments on some editors' talk pages, also a 'one size fits all' mentality (whatever the subject) on the part of others (it would probably be a waste of time to ask whether they had even read the books !).

I agree with you that the recommendation from a published educationalist is a considerable compliment to the coverage(how much more 'real world' can you get). Take care !Pincrete (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. Warden (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Just to inform you that User:Black Kite named you in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TTN, as he apparently forgot to send you a notice. Cavarrone 06:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks but I try to avoid ANI - "It is a silly place." Warden (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breeze Barton

Next time, can you provide an even more ridiculous reason to remove a Prod than here? Are you deliberately disruptive? Opposition needs to have a "reason" behind it, not opposition for the sake of it. This article was discussed at WT:DYK, so it's not as if my concerns were clearly problematic. Fram (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:PROD is explicitly for "uncontroversial deletion". Deleting an article which has been recently created, reviewed and featured on the front page would obviously be controversial. Warden (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any idea of the DYK standards and the lack of checks (with some prominent reviewers even claiming that notability is not a DYK concern), then you wouldn't be making these kind of statements. "Featured on the front page" has zero value. Fram (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that being featured on the front page is no guarantee of quality - see Talk:Throffer, for example. But this is irrelevant. The point is that the article is being actively worked by editors who clearly think the topic has merit. Inserting a prod into this activity is inappropriate because it will be immediately opposed. If you want to have a discussion of the pros and cons, then you should start a discussion at AFD, as you have now done. The prod is disruptive because it wastes time to no purpose. Arguing about the removal is doubly so. Warden (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to forbid PRoD for new(ish) articles, then you can start one. But going around removing prods from recent articles because they are recent articles and because you believe someone else will oppose the prod is disruptive editing. Fram (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breeze Barton, you may be interested to learn that I have opened a discussion to propose merging the article's contents to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Feel free to comment. Taylor Trescott - ^my talk + _{my edits} 20:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Throffer

Now we actually have some sources to discuss, the RfC may be more appropriate, but it fits more neatly with "philosophy and religion" than with "politics, society and law". Even if it is a term of political interest, the topic as a whole is philosophical. J Milburn (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vecna

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Last warning, following this.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And stop toying with the line.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator who's previously blocked Colonel Warden, I was interested to see what is going on here. Unfortunately, I'm not able to see anything in the referenced discussion which appears to be a personal attack. Specific diffs are always helpful when a warning is given. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the relevant diff. The referenced discussion was to remind CW he had already been warned before and was getting close to another block.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And the consequence was ... Keep. Warden (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional films

Why did you remove my comment in this edit [2]? I would like to assume good faith and that it was just an accident, but that's a little hard to believe since there were 3 edits in between them. JDDJS (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure exactly but suppose it was some sort of edit conflict. In other words, an accident. Apologies if this was my fault. Warden (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hill Street

Sorry about that! But I see you've sorted it out. Well worth keeping. All the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chiswick Chap Thanks. I'm glad you found more about the Humes because the source I was mining didn't make it clear which generation was meant. This has been generally quite difficult to establish with all the other Lords and Countesses but I think we have the right one in each case now. The best entries are chaps like Evelyn Ruggles-Brise as there's no mistaking him. Warden (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could become a really fascinating article with detail of how the street changed from one decade to another. The building listing tells much about nos 17 and 19, and there's undoubtedly similar detail available on other houses. Could become another Dog and Duck... Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My impression is that works such as London: A Social History cover a wider sweep such as the Grosvenor estate or all of Mayfair. But there's certainly more to do. I often cycle around that area and I'm now charging up my camera ... Warden (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hill Street, London, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that there were Hill Street blues in 18th-century London? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hill Street, London. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

John Shand

I have re-opened this AFD, your close was invalid - it cannot be a WP:SNOW after one !vote. GiantSnowman 12:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have responded at the AFD. See also WP:LIGHTBULB. Warden (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now re-closed. GiantSnowman 15:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That action was technically improper as you became involved when you started editing the article. No need to revert again though as we obviously don't need to continue that discussion. Warden (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem unaware of what INVOLVED actually entails. GiantSnowman 16:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And the consequence was ... re-closing as 'keep' per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John shand cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automobile ownership

Hi, I came across Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Colonel Warden/Automobile ownership, after which I looked at the current userspace page. Have you thought of moving it into mainspace, since it looks like a decent article? Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have moved it to mainspace so that you or others can more easily get at it. Warden (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "get at it"? I saw only one thing needing editing, and that was to change the category link so that it's actually in the category. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball deaths

Please see {{Did you know nominations/List of baseball deaths}} and WT:DYK. In short, the page fails the DYK length requirement, but I've asked at WT:DYK if we can make an exception and pass the article. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I have suggested some ALT hooks. Warden (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical compounds with unusual names

Please stop attacking me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chemical compounds with unusual names (5th nomination). It is highly inappropriate. The purpose of an AfD is to comment on the merits of articles, not bemoan editors who you disagree with. pbp 19:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• When you create a disruptive repeat nomination in violation of WP:DELAFD, you must expect comment of this kind. See volenti non fit injuria. Warden (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Cept for one problem, bucko: it's neither disruptive nor in violation of WP:DELAFD. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus can change: it's appropriate to revisit an AfD (I might add one I didn't even participate in) after three years. Furthermore, even if it was, it still doesn't give you an excuse to attack me or any other editor. There are venues for that; and AfD isn't one of them. pbp 19:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• RockMagnetist called for suggestions on "How can we keep this from happening again?" and, as this seemed a reasonable question, I gave him my thought on the subject. It seems best to keep such discussions together rather than having them forked onto many pages. Warden (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What would be best is for you to take Rock and my advice to stop attacking me and stop bringing up irrelevant AfDs. For what it's worth, List of Crayola colored pencil colors was nominated for deletion here (alongside List of Crayola crayon colors) by...me. Both were speedy kept, with one of the keep votes coming from your pal DreamFocus. So by the standards you seem to spout, that colored pencils list is safe from being AfDed for awhile pbp 16:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's still puzzling that List of Crayola colored pencil colors does not have user Red Slash in its edit history. Purplebackpack89 should not be getting the credit for creating this article if they did not do so. The attribution should be corrected per WP:CUTPASTE. Warden (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And the consequence was ... Keep. Warden (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of guitars

		The Guitar Barnstar
		A barnstar for your idea and initiative to create the new List of guitars article. Thanks for your work to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome and thank you for expanding that start. It's like a jam session, eh? Warden (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A jam session on the article could bring it to Featured list status someday. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Garcia playing Rosebud: Werewolves Of London. 10-31-91 Oakland Coliseum, CA, USA. (Encore). Enjoy. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Begonias-Fire On The Mountain, easier to view, without the slow motion effects, from the same Halloween 91 show: here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last one, with Ken Kesey rap in Darkstar, Halloween 91: here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFD, Childress, and artificial cranial deformation

Well, that's a catchy section header, anyway.

I do owe you an apology, I suppose, for misreading your one comment as accusing me of sockpuppetry. On the other hand, you did say that I was a canvassed, factually-mistaken zealot. So I suppose we can call it even? Honestly, as far as I know, I haven't had any interactions with you or with the guy who started that AFD, whatever name you know him as. But I do know that Childress is not a scholar of any sort. He's a pseudoarchaeologist and all-purpose conspiracy theorist. A notable one, to be sure, but nothing he says about real medical or historical topics is okay to use as a reference. Even if it just looks like he's quoting someone else. Especially when he says them in self-published sources (and since he owns that book publisher, his stuff there is self-published). Usually, I'm game to merge content forks, but in this case, since it's such a terribly sourced content fork, the real article doesn't need to inherit any of this nonsense. In fact, I'm on my way over to artificial cranial deformation now to weed out what of Childress's stuff is there already. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Msnicki

Colonel. I don't know if you've ever encountered this person at AFD but he has a history of making inappropriate deletion requests on articles which can easily be expanded. Earlier he nominated an article of Rosiestep's just 26 minutes after creation, claiming no web sources; I added 5 sources in two minutes. I consider him to be disruptive and a nuisance, especially as he's reported me at ANI for simply telling him he should be banned from nominating. Can you look into his history and make any suggestions for the way forward? Clearly he's not learning from his mistakes and is continuing to cause trouble. I think we've got a case against him based on how many times he's been wrong to nominate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dr. Blofeld. I am not familiar with this user and so suggest that you try the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard which has recently been set up to "request review of and provide feedback on the performance of an individual new page patroller." Warden (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR Survey (and an update)

Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting blue hair

Thank you for starting blue hair article. I wonder if you would be interested in at least stubbing green hair? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. Warden (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "retired" account

The account Andrew Davidson was unblocked on the basis of a statement by you that you would "retire the Colonel Warden account", but I see that you have recently been using this account quite frequently. Why is that? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The full statement made was "I will retire the Colonel Warden account, using it only when circumstances indicate that it would be more appropriate. Replying to talk page messages and managing its user pages seem likely to be the most common remaining activity and I would expect this to be minimal." So, a low level of activity with the account was expected and that's what's been happening. As I count it, I have used this account for just 27 edits this year, while my main account's edit count was over 2500 in the same period. In any case, the relationship of the accounts has been noted and registered with Arbcom so everything seems to be in order per WP:VALIDALT. Warden (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There remains the question of why I should have recently used this account more frequently. I have the impression that there's a seasonal peak of activity in October. I myself attended three separate editing events in that month - at the Cinema Museum, the Royal Opera House and the British Library - and it was similar last year when there were four such events. The events cause me to pay more attention to Wikipedia but my activity is performed using my real name account as it seems inappropriate to be using a pseudonym on such occasions. But there is perhaps also a seasonal peak of activity affecting the body of work created by this other account or perhaps I just notice it more easily. In October there was a DRV for a topic which I had nominated for deletion as Colonel Warden. It therefore seemed appropriate to comment on the matter with the same account so as to maintain continuity. Then there was a proposal to delete an image which I had uploaded as Colonel Warden. It likewise seemed appropriate to respond with the same account to make the history of the matter clear. There was some housekeeping activity associated with these two incidents and that's about it. Previous months were comparatively quiet - nothing in June, July and August - but I suppose that's also seasonal as those months are the height of summer. But now winter is coming...

  Dull November brings the blast,
  Then the leaves are falling fast.
  — Sara Coleridge

Warden (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Was Kaiser Bill's Batman

Hello Colonel Warden, It’s quite a while ago now – on 6 March 2010 you created the article “I Was Kaiser Bill’s Batman”. That day you wrote there, among other facts, that John O’Neill was the whistler of that song. Later another Wikipedian was quite adamant on three occasions (17 July 2013, 12 August 2013, 19 May 2015) to remove that information from the article justifying this change by referring to the very same sources that you had put in there in the beginning. I’ve contacted the mentioned Wikipedian on his talk site but he insists on being right regarding this matter. But the current statement in the article “This was credited to Whistling Jack Smith provided as a session musician by Mike Sammes of the Mike Sammes Singers” can’t be correct because it sounds like Jack Smith was a real person. But you are more knowledgable here. So, what do the sources actually say (Then, Now and Rare British Beat 1960-1969; Whistling in the wind for a good tune)? Could you look at them once more to clarify and correct the article? Thank you (Stillbusy (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Colonel Warden/List of military commanders

The page was literally empty (probably created by a bug in DPL bot's code?). Here is the complete deleted page history:

(del/undel) (diff) 15:20, 26 August 2014 . . Kkj11210 (talk | contribs | block) (16 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A3). (TW))
(del/undel) (diff) 13:36, 26 August 2014 . . DPL bot (talk | contribs | block) (empty) (removing dablinks template; fewer than 4 disambig links (see the FAQ))

If you want, I can still undelete it and move it to your userspace, but if you really need an empty page, you can just go and create one yourself. Happy editing, —Kusma (t·c) 09:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note that the page is in mainspace, and has no connection to you that I can see, which is probably why nobody notified you. —Kusma (t·c) 09:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: The page rings a bell so I think I did something with it in the past and it seems puzzling that there's no record of the page creation. If it's not too much trouble, please restore the page so we have what history there is and I'll then flesh it out with some content. The concept is an ambitious one but I reckon I can make something of it in draft and that will then suggest sensible ways forward. Having the page will also allow me to check <what links here> to investigate the mystery of its emptiness. Maybe that will go nowhere but such challenges are motivating, I find. Warden (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatlinkshere is a good idea. It works without the page existing: Special:WhatLinksHere/Colonel Warden/List of military commanders points us to User talk:DPL bot/Archive 5, where the page and bug are mentioned. The page User:Colonel Warden/List of military commanders still exists (and probably something connected to that page made the bot malfunction) -- is that what you are looking for? You can find a list of all pages in your userspace at Special:Prefixindex/User:Colonel Warden if you no longer remember them. Best wishes, —Kusma (t·c) 14:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: That's all clear now - thanks for the explanation and tips. No need to restore the page as the real one is still there. Warden (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Covent Garden

The Covent Garden article has been scheduled to appear on the main page at the end of this month on the 30th. Shortly after it was scheduled, a FAR was opened by User:Scott: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Covent Garden/archive1. I am looking at addressing his concerns, though they are vague, and he appears unwilling to expand on his concerns. As you were involved in the FAC in 2011 (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Covent Garden/archive1) would you mind looking at the review, and providing some guidance as to how to proceed. SilkTork ^✔Tea time 19:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am quite familiar with the topic and so will take a look at the article and review. Warden (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Metals Disintegrating Company for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metals Disintegrating Company 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/Metals Disintegrating Company 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. Edison (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMX-25

I ask you to Write there. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I missed the discussion but the outcome was a reasonable result: SMX-25. Warden (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of NYLON for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NYLON 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/NYLON 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. Shirt58 (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The result of the discussion was Keep. Warden (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article in The Journal of the South Eastern Agricultural College, University of London (41-44): 191–195, 1938

Hi, You kindly added a reference to Duncorn Hill citing Title of article in The Journal of the South Eastern Agricultural College, University of London (41-44): 191–195, 1938. I was wondering if you had the title of the paper concerned?— Rod ^talk 17:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have updated the citation. Warden (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dark Lady (character) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dark Lady (character) 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/Dark Lady (character) 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. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ball (baseball listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ball (baseball. Since you had some involvement with the Ball (baseball redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ToThAc (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images and pictures

Your photo, in use!

Hey there - you may remember me from the tussle over Valhalla Vineyards. I am at a talk right now at the 151st Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, and the David Haskell, author of The Forest Unseen, just used your photo of a sand mandala in his talk! With credit! I saw "Colonel Warden" down there and thought...hmm! I bet that's the same guy. Anyhow, thought you'd want to know.

Be well! --Vivisel (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vivisel Many thanks for letting me know. Here's a thumb of the picture, FYI. What was it illustrating in the talk? It was created when the Dalai Lama visited the Palace of Westminster here in London but it no longer exists as such mandalas are destroyed when they are finished. Those buddhists must be deletionists! :) Warden (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonel Warden A very belated response - but here is the video in which it appears! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6bD9HAy8QI . Enjoy.

And, while I'm at it, I just noticed an AfD discussion that, based on our past discussions, might be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unisex_public_toilet.

Hope all is well! Vivisel (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vivisel: Many thanks for the update. The photo credit is about a minute into the video and the photocredit is very prominent. I must write to the speaker to thank him. I was speaking myself at an editathon last weekend and that was videotaped too. I'm not sure when and where that will be put online but will look out for that too. As for the AfD, I still patrol there and had already seen that discussion. I looked at the topic and got the impression that it wasn't in much danger and so moved on but will keep an eye on it to make sure. Warden (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I took another look at the Valhalla Vineyards AFD and was amused to note a reference to Gaby's Deli. That was cited as an example of a topic that didn't then exist but, by coincidence, I happened to start an article about that place over six years years later and it was good enough to be posted on the main page. I've started having lunch there myself and can recommend it. If you should visit London then please get in touch and we can drink some wine there perhaps. Warden (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This incident came up again recently at a photography workshop in preparation for Wiki loves monuments. There were lots of new contributors there and I gave this as an example of how one's work might be credited elsewhere. The class was quite interested and impressed so thanks again to Vivisel for pointing this out. Warden (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wonderful! It's great to be able to bring a case study like this full-circle. And, to your earlier comment, I will certainly let you know when I am in London next. Not quite sure when that'll be, but I will look forward to a Gaby's Deli expedition. Likewise if you find yourself in D.C., please drop me a line. Vivisel (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Telectroscope observers in London.jpg

Thank you, for uploading this file.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm some details,

If it's your own work, please include {{own}}, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

If it's not your own work please provide as much sourcing/authorship information as you are able to.

It would also be appreciated if you could "claim" or update the source and licensing on other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The image in question already states clearly that it was my own work. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you want some more forms filling out in triplicate, you should please do that work yourself. Warden (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Martyrdom of Lawrence - Edited.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Martyrdom of Lawrence - Edited.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It should have been obvious that the picture was painted by Titian in the 16th century. It has been refunded. Warden (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hugh Low Street.PNG

Do you still have the original postcard? It would be nice to know if there was photographer credit on the reverse? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vismarkt by Joachim Beuckelaer.JPG

The file File:Vismarkt by Joachim Beuckelaer.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Housekeeping - No Obvious Use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CptViraj (📧) 11:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To recap, what happened here was that an image was uploaded with the frame. I cropped it for use in the article fishmonger in 2011. The first image has now been updated so that it crops the frame too. There is therefore no need for a separate cropped version now and so the proposed deletion may be reasonable. Warden (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Bully club" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bully club. Since you had some involvement with the Bully club redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Hedgehog flavoured" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hedgehog flavoured. Since you had some involvement with the Hedgehog flavoured redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Auld Lang Syne

Congrats on Brexit! Friend of BJ! I am the guy you helped with vectors years ago. The fires burn, the flies circle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.237.43.36 (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! While the Colonel's political friendships are broad, I fear you don't know him that well if you think he supported Brexit. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again; it's good to hear from you and I'll send you an email to catch up. As for Brexit, I plan to visit Parliament Square today to take some photos which we might use on Wikipedia. All strictly NPOV, of course. Warden (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Smelly socks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Smelly socks 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/Smelly socks (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Groiglery1217 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ELife logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ELife logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This happened because the logo changed. Warden (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Gypsy Breynton.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gypsy Breynton.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Soho Society

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Soho Society 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 company, corporation or organization that does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. User:Namiba 17:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diese Schandtaten Eure Schuldt.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Diese Schandtaten Eure Schuldt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. buidhe 08:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bon vivant for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bon vivant 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/Bon vivant 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. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have access to HighBeam has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikipedians who have access to HighBeam has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Notifying of deletion of Baby Bottom Butter Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Colonel Warden! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 04:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Z-Man catalog.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Z-Man catalog.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Raven Row

The article Raven Row has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by being owned by someone notable

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• And a Merry Christmas to you too. Warden (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiEagle - January 2022

The WikiEagle

The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter

Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged. On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue. Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion. The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7. The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed. The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125. The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members New Members KingAviationKid (Joined on 17 December) PatrickChiao (Joined on 22 December) Wp9097 (Joined on 16 December) Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921. Closed Discussions Featured Article assessment Jim Lovell (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Good Article assessment HAL Tejas (discussion) – Closed as not promoted on 30 December 2021 William Hodgson (RAF officer) (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021 Supermarine Sea King (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 22 December 2021 Raymond Hesselyn (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 4 December 2021 Deletion Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction (discussion) – Closed as delete and redirect on 30 December 2021 Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (discussion) – Closed as keep on 25 December 2021 Requested moves Akbarpur (Ambedkar Nagar) Airstrip → Akbarpur Airstrip (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 1983 Avensa Douglas DC-9 crash → Avensa Flight 007 (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 035 (discussion) – Withdrawn on 28 December 2021	Article Statistics This data reflects values from DMY. Aviation pages by quality Quality Total FA 142 FL 15 A 56 GA 505 B 4,573 C 11,878 Start 15,082 Stub 18,754 List 2,539 Category 11,638 Disambig 653 File 2,713 Portal 629 Project 89 Redirect 1,518 Template 2,489 NA 66 Assessed 73,339 Unassessed 1 Total 73,340 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 252,068 Ω = 4.91
New/Ongoing Discussions Featured Article review D. B. Cooper (discussion) – Since 14 December 2021 A-class Article assessment Granville Gee Bee Model A (discussion) – Since 21 April 2020 List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War (discussion) – Since 22 February 2010 Good Article assessment Romanian Air Corps (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Jean Batten (discussion) – Since 2 October 2021 Merger proposals List of astronauts by name → List of astronauts by year of selection (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of cosmonauts → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 List of space travelers by name → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021 Holidays Czech Airlines → Czech Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 June 2021 Bendix Aviation → Bendix Corporation (discussion) – Since 30 May 2021 Airport Movement Area Safety System → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 29 May 2021 ASDE-X → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 28 May 2021 Splitting proposals Family Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 November 2021 2021 Kabul airport attack (discussion) – Since 24 September 2021 List of military aircraft of the United States (discussion) – Since 16 August 2021 Braniff International Airways (discussion) – Since 8 September 2019 Deletion List of maiden voyages (discussion) – Since 29 December 2021 Requested moves Hot-air balloon → Hot air balloon (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 → Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 150 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 708 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 Garuda Indonesia Flight 892 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021 TWA Flight 800 → TWA Flight 800 (1996) (discussion) – Since 27 December 2021 Dynamic Airways Flight 405 → Dynamic International Airways Flight 405 (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 CommutAir Flight 4281 → CommutAir Flight 4821 (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021 Thai Airways → Thai Airways International (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Thai Airways fleet → Thai Airways International fleet (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 List of Thai Airways destinations → List of Thai Airways International destinations (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021 Did you know Ravish Malhotra (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021 Alexander Tahy (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021 Veronica Volkersz (discussion) – Since 6 December 2021 Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (discussion) – Since 3 December 2021 On The Main Page Did you know... ... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)
Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list. Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Z-Man catalog.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Z-Man catalog.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of -ly for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article -ly 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/-ly 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.

CPORfan (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken as I am not welcome to contribute to the discussion; I am forbidden to do so. Audi alteram partem ... Not! Warden (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The result was keep

Nomination of List of fictional Scots for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fictional Scots 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/List of fictional Scots (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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.

Dronebogus (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The result was keep

"Male unemployment" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Male unemployment 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/2023 June 26 § Male unemployment until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Mancession 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/2023 June 26 § Mancession until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of bizarre buildings for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of bizarre buildings 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/List of bizarre buildings 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.

Fram (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of E. C. Stoner (disambiguation)

The article E. C. Stoner (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gordon Thompson (songwriter)

The article Gordon Thompson (songwriter) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

nothing to indicate notability

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. FMSky (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Methodist High School" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Methodist High School 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 October 9 § Methodist High School until a consensus is reached. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]