User talk:PatGallacher/Archive 9

Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Speedy deletion nomination of Anna Zozulia

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 Anna Zozulia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not 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 removed 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. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Protestant Reformation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopalianism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anna Zozulia

The article Anna Zozulia has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Christian75 (talk) 17:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Monika Wulf-Mathies

The article Monika Wulf-Mathies has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Kolbasz (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sadie Docherty

The article Sadie Docherty has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Kolbasz (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bhavna Limbachia

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 Bhavna Limbachia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not 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 removed 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. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Antoneta Stefanova listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Antoneta Stefanova. Since you had some involvement with the Antoneta Stefanova redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sophia91 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bhavna Limbachia

The article Bhavna Limbachia has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Safiel (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Additional comment Only source given on the page is Imdb which, of course, is not a reliable source. The BLP Prod must stand unless and until a reliable source is introduced into the article. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bhavna Limbachia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glasgow Gorbals (UK Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alice Cullen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Soledad Sosa

The article Soledad Sosa has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Bhavna Limbachia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bhavna Limbachia 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/Bhavna Limbachia (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. Huon (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Svetla Yordanova

The article Svetla Yordanova has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. noq (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC) {{subst:prodwarning|1=John Hay, 2nd Lord Hay of Yester|concern=No indication of [[WP:notability[]. Unsourced reference to a song about a "Lord Yester" without establishing it as this one and nothing else.}} noq (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cat Boyd, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PCS and Socialist Workers Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Ballad of Spiro Agnew

The article The Ballad of Spiro Agnew has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Richhoncho (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ludmila Tsifanskaya

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 Ludmila Tsifanskaya requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not 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 removed 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. Giooo95 (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Catherine Perena

The article Catherine Perena has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. JTtheOG (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of R. Vaishali

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 R. Vaishali requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not 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 removed 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. Citobun (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paula Andrea Rodriguez Rueda

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 Paula Andrea Rodriguez Rueda requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not 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 removed 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. Sophia91 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aydan Hojjatova, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Azerbaijani. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ramesh Babu Vaishali

The article Ramesh Babu Vaishali has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Liz Read! Talk! 12:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Princes in the Tower

Greetings

This is to let you know I have removed your tags from the Princes in the Tower article. This is because (1) there is plenty of evidence that John of Gloucester was executed by Henry VII and (2) you are incorrect, or rather only partially correct, in your claim that Simnel claimed to be Warwick and not Richard. At the battle of Stoke, he claimed to be Warwick - however, at the beginning of his insurrection, he claimed to be Richard. Nobody actually believed him in either claim, of course. They were both patent lies, invented by Margaret of Burgundy and the Earl of Lincoln for their own purposes and frantically fishing for something vaguely plausible to justify their actions (a bit like Richard III himself, of course, who if all of his increasingly desperate claims are to be believed was practically the only member of his entire family born in wedlock). But that was hardly relevant to your own points.

By the way - just a thought, but if you put such tags on, open a discussion on the article talk page as well. Makes it easier to see what the problem is.81.135.62.191 (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bríd Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TD. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, but...

You've now made the same edit four times in two days while apparently refusing to engage in discussion. This is edit warring, whether or not you have technically broken the three revert rule. Your latest edit came with the cryptic comment that you "don't think this is BRD". I have no idea what that means. I'm not trying to patronise you, but your weird comments suggest to me that you're confused, so here's the situation: The bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle is very simple. Someone (in this case, you) boldly makes an edit. Someone else (in this case, me) reverts the edit. The original editor then has three options: First, they could engage in an edit war, in which case they face the prospect of being blocked. This is what you have done, and this is not an acceptable option, due to our policies against edit warring. Second, they could let it drop and get on with their life. This is the result I was hoping for, but oh well. Third (and this is the D in BRD), they could engage in discussion with the editor who has reverted them, perhaps on the article talk page. If the discussion leads to an intractable disagreement, there can be a request for comment. Now, I think that's all very simple, but the current situation has really not worked out well; what's gone wrong? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

And to add insult to injury, your hatnote is not even MOS-compliant. So, because I'm unwilling to edit war with you further, you've now left the featured article I spent many hours working on non-MOS-compliant. This whole situation is ridiculous. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I have replied to this on the talk page for the article A Quiet Night In.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of police-related slang terms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Thin Blue Line. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Allan Campbell McLean

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 Allan Campbell McLean requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1838816.The_Hill_of_the_Red_Fox. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed 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. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of California v. Murray for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article California v. Murray 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/California v. Murray 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

My signing my own edit

Hello. I fail to understand what you thought you were doing here. This was me signing my own edit instead of SineBot. In what possible way could that need you to interfere? Please do not do this. Thank you. 82.36.105.25 (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Natalie McGarry

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Robert Williams (1735-1814)

Please quote your source.Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Royal Train, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southern Railway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hubert Brasier

I've removed the PROD tag because the discussion you invited on the talk page was effectively an AfD without the structure of an AfD. If you want an AfD, please do it the normal way. Thanks, for (;;) (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald MacLaren of MacLaren you wrote something that really shocked me: "We previously reached agreement that Lord Lieutenants are not inherently notable."

Isn't a Lord Lieutenant the equivalent for UK counties and subsidiary kingdoms to to the Lieutenant Governors of Canadian Provinces? Isn't it essentially a vice-regal appointment? It seems to me that it is a position that clearly meets the criterai for WP:POLITICIAN -- ie an office-holder at the State or Provincial level.

So, I would be very grateful if you would supply a link to whatever discussion you think reached the agreement LL were not notable. Geo Swan (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Ross (British Army officer). I don't know much about Canadian Lt. Govs., but provinces are larger areas than UK counties. PatGallacher (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I have several problems with this.
  1. I am not comfortable with you referencing a single AFD, where only three other people weighed in, and representing it as a project wide consensus.
  2. I acknowledge I don't know the specific duties of a county Lord Lieutenant in the 21st Century. I know, from reading biographies of notable UK politicians, like the Duke of Wellington, that the position of Lord Lieutenant was highly notable in the 19th Century.
  3. Just about every Canadian Province is geographically much larger than a UK County. But, in terms of population the three most populous UK Metropolitan counties West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire are more populous than Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island -- ie 60 % of Canada's Provinces. More than 80 percent of UK counties are more populous than PEI. Four UK counties are larger than PEI. PEI is like Canada's Rhode Island.
  4. The position of Lord Lieutenant is not confined to Counties. Wellington, for instance, was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
  5. it seems to me that it should be irrelevant if the position is largely ceremonial. Don't we consider ALL Presidents as notable as a US President, no matter which republic, no matter how tiny, without regard to differences in those other Republic's Constitution, that left the Presidents of some republics with largely ceremonial duties. If I am not mistaken the President of Israel's duties are largely ceremonial, as were the duties of the President of the old Soviet Union. Joseph Stalin wasn't the President of the Soviet Union, his position was Secretary of the Communist Party. He didn't even hold a cabinet portfolio.

    Similarly, Constitutional Monarchs duties are almost all ceremonial, they are nevertheless the official Head Of State. Constitutional Monarchs unquestionably meet WP:POLITICIAN's criteria for the Federal level, even if their duties are largely ceremonial. And Lord Lieutenants in the UK, and Lieutenant Governors in Canada, meet WP:POLITICIAN's criteria at the State/Province level, even during periods when their duties are largely ceremonial.

    Are UK counties the second level for the UK, like a Canadian Province or US State? I say yes. Not every country names its second level a Province or State. Even in the Anglosphere there are nations, whose second level is a County, or Parish. Lots of countries, have multiple parallel second levels. Canada and Pakistan have both Provinces and territories. The USA has its States, once had territories, still has Puerto Rico, Guam, etc, which aren't States, but are nevertheless are at the second level.

  6. Your nomination cites WP:SOLDIER, as if it trumps WP:POLITICIAN. But how do you figure that is possible, when WP:SOLDIER is just an essay, and WP:POLITICIAN is an official notability guideline?
Could you please name for me all the AFD where you have claimed Lord Lieutenant doesn't meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN, or that the WP:SOLDIER essay trumps WP:POLITICIAN? Geo Swan (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I have looked into this, and I think there are some reasons why Canadian LLs are not equivalent to British LLs, Canadian provinces are significantly more important than British counties, its not just a question of population size. It is implicit in WP:POLITICIAN that Canadian provincial deputies are inherently notable, but we seem to have regarded the bulk of local politicians in Britain as not notable. LL of Ireland is not equivalent either. Nobody argued that WP:SOLDIER trumps WP:POLITICIAN, the argument was that Donald Ross did not meet either notability criterion. I am not sure if there have been other deletion discussions where this issue was discussed, but feel free to open an Undeletion discussion for Donald Ross if you want. PatGallacher (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Most Canadian Lieutenant Governors may be more important than most UK Lord Lieutenants, today. Let's leave aside the question of which UK Lord Lieutenants are more important than the Lieutenant Governors of the tiny Canadian Province of Prince Edward Island.
POLITICIAN doesn't, and shouldn't, cherry pick which nation's heads of state are most important. Palau is a country of just a few thousand individuals. On this scale of importance you used to rank Canadian LGs as notable, and UK LLs as non-notable, is the President of Palau more important than an UK LL? Is a Paluan Cabinet member more important than an UK LL?
What about Sark's legislature? Sark's population is about 1000. Its head of state is Queen Elizabeth's last feudal vassal. Sark has a legislature, consisting of very part time legislators, each elected by a couple of dozen neighbours. Okay, it seems odd to treat them as important as a member of Canada's parliament, or the US Congress. But any other scale is way more hard to implement. Consider legislators important, or unimportant, depending on how large their constituency is? That would be an incredible nightmare to implement. And, no offense, but I suggest your scale, where you state UK LLs shouldn't count, because their duties are too ceremonial, is not much better than a hard to implement system based on constituency duties. Some legislatures have evolved so their members are relatively powerless. Should we not grant such legislators POLITICIAN status?
US Congress people remain relatively more powerful than Canadian backbenchers -- MPs who aren't Cabinet members or Parliamentary Secretaries. In 1985 I sat in on a day of hearings of a traveling inter-Parliamentary Committee. Brian Mulroney's Conservatives had swept the Province of Quebec, and had a large majority that included about 60 first-term backbenchers from Quebec. Because the Conservatives were in power, a Conservative was the committee's chair. The Liberal and NDP members of the committee were intelligent, well informed, respectful. But the Conservatives? The chair spoke, often, and in a highly partisan way. He made no effort to appear non-partisan. He was clearly trying to sherpherd his committee to reach a conclusion that Mulroney had directed him to reach. His fellow Conservatives? Almost silent. They were lollygagging; staring at the ceiling; doodling. They weren't paying attention. There were only a few occasions when one of them piped up, with a question to the presenters. And all those comments showed they hadn't done any homework, and weren't paying attention.
Why was this? Because, under the de facto Party system, in Canada, party discipline is so tight a back-bencher role in making policy is largely for show.
So, my position remains the same. I urge you to reconsider not including relatively powerless, relatively ceremonial positions, when they measure up to the letter of POLITICIAN, because this approach leads to chaos. Geo Swan (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Parvus

Would you please explain your 2010 edit? Maybe the context has changed? Leon Trotsky has responded - how? Your source is probably trotskyst, which makes it unreliable. Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

My source is Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution itself, easily available online. PatGallacher (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Murder of Farah Noor Adams

The article Murder of Farah Noor Adams has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

article is about a murder which does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for general notability

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Murder of Farah Noor Adams for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Farah Noor Adams 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/Murder of Farah Noor Adams 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. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Giles' Church. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Margarita of Bulgaria, Article title and lead

Sorry PatGallacher, but I think there might be issues that we don't agree upon. At this point (at least) I'm not insisting that she be called a Queen in the article title, which I would prefer, but the present one is bad in more than one way. The first mention in the article should at least reflect some official name. Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is not her civil surname in Bulgarian (we are not in the habit of translating civil surnames from other languages into English alternatives for them), nor is it a reflection of a title she may hold by courtesy in some way. If it is to be regarded as a civil surname it should be rendered in Bulgarian. If it's the derivative of a title it should at least be "of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha". And people who choose to be known by their civil surnames and not titles, should not have their civil surnames "translated" into another language like English. That is just wrong. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Treasure (TV drama), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Thorne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lorn Macdonald

The article Lorn Macdonald has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no reliable references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maurishka

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

No indication of meeting the notability guidelines at WP:ENT

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sabrina Latreche

The article Sabrina Latreche has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no reliable references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Gbawden (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar

Hello PatGallacher,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Murder of Surjit Singh Chhokar for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Mindcap (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sharon Green

The article Sharon Green has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability, and two sources provided on page are not independent. Unable to find further sources. Appears subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:BIO.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, PatGallacher. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)