User talk:Thisbites

MfD nomination of User:Thisbites/hema

User:Thisbites/hema, 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:Thisbites/hema and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Thisbites/hema 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. Gigs (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

Hi, you might have missed the benefit of using the Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple process rather than creating a new account. With the username change you can carry-over your previous edit history and watchlist, this also means that other editors can see your past track record which may or may not be a good thing depending on your preferences. Note that you always have the option of a Clean start should you prefer that option and you are not required to explain your previous track record. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I didn't notice that you were an active editor prior to your rename. Please accept my apology for implying that you were only here to promote your organization. Gigs (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of dudesnude

Hello! Your submission of dudesnude at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! SusanLesch (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dudesnude

Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of San Francisco City Clinic

Hello! Your submission of San Francisco City Clinic at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! PM800 (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salesian High School (Richmond, California)

It appears that you may not have completed the steps for your proposed AfD of this article, because there doesn't seem to be any page currently in existence called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salesian High School (Richmond, California). If you wish to proceed with this, you may need to fix the problem. Before you do so, however, I'd respectfully suggest that you withdraw the AfD instead. Mainstream high schools in the U.S. are always kept at AfD, even when the pages have very little in the way of content or sources, as long as there's some form of verification of their existence. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) and WP:OUTCOMES#Education. This article is packed with sources, the school is very well-known, and it's hard to imagine that there'd be substantial support for deleting the article. Of course, you are free to proceed as you see fit. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Unintentionally humorous talk page section}}

Good catch there with the High School. Adding that template to pages makes me feel awfully boyish, but... funny stuff. <( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )> 03:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hi, I noticed that your current signature doesn't seem to include any link to your User page, Talk page, or contributions page. This makes it more difficult for other editors to identify you and to respond to your messages. Please note that the Wikipedia behavioral guideline at WP:SIGLINK states: "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." Thanks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thisbytes, please modify your signature to add an appropriate link. Click on my preferences and edit the text in the third section under Signature. —EncMstr (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last warning: Please fix your signature immediately. —EncMstr (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Kudpung (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Thisbites. You have new messages at Fæ's talk page.
Message added 10:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

San Francisco City Clinic

I noticed you reversed my removal of the Transportation section for the article. I indicated it was unencyclopedic. You disagreed. This section is a "how to guide" to how to get there - per WP:ISNOT Wikipedia is not a "how to guide". Thoughts? ttonyb (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Thisbites. You have new messages at Ttonyb1's talk page.
Message added 20:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

December, 2010

Please do not edit war to insert disputed information in articles, as you have been doing at Craigslist.[1][2][3] Per WP:Consensus it is your responsibility to gather the community's consensus for proposed content changes. I have disputed your proposal as a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:V. Please feel free to discuss on the talk page why you feel the proposed text is a worthwhile addition to the article, and insert it only if it gains consensus. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When content is disputed, please cease making changes and focus instead on discussion. For your proposed content to be retained in the article you must persuade interested editors that it compiles with Wikipedia's key policies. Continuing to make disputed changes while discussion is underway decreases your credibility, violates many of our communication practices, and just generally makes our volunteer editors less motivated. —EncMstr (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a bit harsh sounding. I can tell you're enjoying editing the encyclopedia and are doing it in good spirits, and wish you the best around here! - Wikidemon (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

conditional block

You are blocked from editing until your signature is linked per WP:SIG. Fix it, then please add a message here and sign it with ~~~~ and you'll be unblocked. —EncMstr (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Done.THISBITES 22:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}}
I fixed my signatureTHISBITES 22:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'''[[User talk:Thisbites|THIS]]'''<small>'''[[User talk:Thisbites|BITES]]'''</small> (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thereThisbites (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. You should be unblocked now. —EncMstr (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback Tool

Hi! I noticed that you've been adding several articles to the Article Feedback Tool pilot list. I think it's great that you are interested in being involved with the pilot but I'm going to have to ask you to stop. The articles you added the tool to are not good candidates for the "Additional Articles" list, so I'm going to remove them from the category. If you like, you can join in our discussion about it at mw:Article feedback/Public Policy Pilot/Additional Pages.

Thanks!--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I fixed the link.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berryessa (BART station)

Hmmm - the article seems to be about Milpitas BART station! PamD (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Natatorium, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been your intention...

But... just see this diff Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 07:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Dixon, California

Please provide a source for this claim. Thanks! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 07:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For failing to realize you need to provide evidence as to why something is true. Please do not add this again or I will report you to WP:ANEW Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 07:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an obvious observation, why not remove mention of the may fair and dicksonville too, they are unsourced and not obvious!Thisbites (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked 1 week for disruption and vandalism. (blocked by –MuZemike 07:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Your last several edits are clearly intended on disrupting the encyclopedia, and you well knew that. –MuZemike 07:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thisbites (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was trying to work out the details of the article and this other user kept undoing any attempt to reword the statement, s/he arbitrarily pick and chose this one part of the article, and my edits where very constructive, and i was not trying to disrupt the encyclopedia just trying to add a fact i knew about to dixon, i also contacted the editor and discussed it on the talk page but that editor reverted anything i added, even a template, she should be blocked too!

Decline reason:

You're sitting this one out, lest we see you at Lake Titicaca. Please stop adding irrelevant and likely erroneous details to articles. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WP:NOTTHEM anyone? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make a big deal out of Dixon, Dickson, or other similar city name suggests someone who just learned the term "dick" yesterday and is looking for it everywhere. This is an encyclopedia, not the journals of Beevis and Butt-Head. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Thisbites (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

no unblock reason provided

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well you have a narrow view of what an encyclopedia is and there is an article about these funny sounding names, and Dixon would be an appropriate member of the article on unintentionally unusual and humorous names, I was not trying to be immature, I had no problem when I added Analy High School and edited that page as well, I thought this other editor was being the disruptive one, I made every effort to talk to her but she never responded to what I actually said, just unblock me and I'll drop it already its not that big an issue, I see I have just pissed someone off that is high up here.Thisbites (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and that Lake Titicaca remark was rather uncalled for, I do think its an appropriate member of that category though.Thisbites (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Find a valid reference for Dixon being widely thought to be a funny name for a city, and you might have something. Your happening to notice it is insufficient, as that's "original research". Intercourse, Pennsylvania, gets plenty of snickers. Nobody snickers at Dixon unless they're really desperate - like Beevis and Butt-Head. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that entire "Template:Unintentionally humorous place names" consists of original research that was posted just a couple of weeks ago, and I have a hunch it is headed for the dustbin sometime soon. Like just a minute ago. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thisbites - you're an otherwise fine editor. Email me about it if it's really bothering you. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thisbites, most experienced Wikipedians take a dim view of adding unsourced jokes or humour to articles and such edits are invariably considered direct vandalism (WP:NOTJOKE). You are free to be somewhat lighter on non-article pages and many user essays are intentionally humorous (see WP:LOL). I have appreciated some of your previous contributions for what are often controversial and difficult to manage sex and sexuality-related articles. I suggest you take Xavexgoem up on their offer to correspond by email and then formally write out an unblock request making it clear that you have taken on board the guidance given and intend not to repeat this behaviour. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest another unblock request, as well, Thisbites. Others have been dismissive of past contributions, and I don't think that's fair. Still, you need to make a case for yourself. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked early, for the DYK and other positive contributions. But you gotta promise me to keep it somewhat serious (it's implicit). Fae has the best advice. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC) And remember: never ever create an account to evade a block. Ever! Not that you did it this time, but you have in the past. If it happens again, you'll be blocked forever.[reply]

BLP

Please be more careful when dealing with claims about living people. This edit is dangerous and inappropriate. The teacher was merely accused of molestation, not convicted, yet you presented it as fact. The actual outcome of the case was that the teacher was cleared of all molestation charges, and the contact was apparently non-sexual in nature, though not necessarily appropriate. This kind of sloppiness is absolutely unacceptable when dealing with controversial information about living people. Please be more careful in the future. Gigs (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for San Francisco City Clinic

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Pacific Center for Human Growth

Hi, I reviewed your nomination and found some issues with the referencing. Letting you know, and I'll keep checking to see if it's ready for a check mark. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Friends of the Five Creeks

The article Friends of the Five Creeks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This organization has very little if any notability and is already mentioned in the Cerrito Creek article. I would motion for it to be merged if there is new verifiable/notable information that can be added to that article. Otherwise, it should be deleted and redirected per WP:ORG

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Thisbites. You have new messages at Fæ's talk page.
Message added 10:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello, Thisbites. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

About sources

Fortunately I have access to LexusNexus and JSTOR. You may want to check if your nearby library offers free access to these types of databases, many do. As for free access I tend to park some handy shortcuts to obvious sites such as copac, worldcat, googlebooks; newspapers with free searches, NYT, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent; ... Magazines, Time, Advocate News, ... remember that Google can search any specific website without an engine by using the "site:" parameter as part of the search. If you hear about a source and need someone to look it up, then WP:REX can be handy.

It may be worth creating your own mashup, here's the code I use for bookmark to use the shortcut "nn" to search four sites at once and display the results in four sub-frames:

javascript:(function(){if(%22%s%22.length==0){}else{var%20s=%22%s%22.replace(/\s/g,%22%252B%22);var%20h=%22http%253A%252F%252F%22,q=%22%253F%22,a=%22%2526%22;window.location=%22http://yubnub.org/example/split?type=t%26urls=%22+h+%22www.google.com/archivesearch%22+q+%22q=%22+s+%22+%22+h+%22search.bbc.co.uk/search%22+q+%22scope=all%22+a+%22tab=ns%22+a+%22edition=d%22+a+%22q=%22+s+%22+%22+h+%22browse.guardian.co.uk/search%22+q+%22search=%22+s+%22+%22+h+%22www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sitesearch.do%22+q+%22query=%22+s;}})()

Lastly there is the personal network. If you are writing about an organization it can be worth writing to a press officer (or generally to a forum or email group) and ask if there are some good reliable sources to quote for the Wikipedia article. Most organizations will fall over themselves to help once they hear a Wikipedian is sorting out their entry.

Cheers, Fæ (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right- and left-hand traffic

Hi there. The title of the article Right- and left-hand traffic was chosen by consensus a while ago, so if you think it should be changed, please gain consensus for your new title rather than just changing it with no discussion. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article's name should be changed to Driving side or driver's side of the road, the current title is very unappealing an uglyThisbites (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, gain consensus for a new title on its talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well i see not consensus on the topic honestly.Thisbites (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the archives, here. Please respect the previous discussion and get consensus before moving again. Oh, and you don't need to reply on my talk; here is fine, and it makes the discussion clear and not fragmented. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific East Mall and Friends of Five Creeks

Hello! I know that you have been an active participant in the debate about what information to include regarding these two entities. And you objected to my removing the information from the Friends of Five Creeks article. So I wanted to let you know that I have come up with what I think is a fair, sourced way of including the allegations in the articles. Please see Talk:Friends of Five Creeks for my reasoning. Then look at Talk:Pacific East Mall and let me know if you think my proposed wording is acceptable. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment at my talk page; I'll go ahead and insert that wording in the relevant articles, and delete the "disputed" tag.
Also, you asked for advice about getting a page protected. The way to get protection is to post a request for semiprotection (which means that ISP accounts can't edit) at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, I doubt if it will be granted in this case, because the section blanking problem doesn't look that major. It happened a couple of times over a period of many months; that's pretty minor. Semiprotection is used for frequent, serious vandalism. I learned what they consider "serious" when I requested semiprotection for a page that was being vandalized about once a day; the administrator declined it at that time, but granted it later when the pace picked up to three or four times a day. For repeated but rare vandalism like the school page you asked about, the best solution is simply to put the article on your watchlist so you can revert it when it happens. Schools are often targets of mischievous editing.
Thanks for your offer of help with the Bay Area. Since we have been talking about creeks, I do have a question. As it happens I grew up in Oakland, in the Rockridge area, and I have been curious what became of Chabot Creek. I can't find any information about it now, much less a Wikipedia article. But I used to play there sometimes as a child (although I wasn't supposed to). At that time it flowed in the open about as far as Keith Avenue (between College and Broadway) and then went into an underground culvert. Maybe was entirely relegated to underground status when they built the Highway 24 freeway? --MelanieN (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, thisbites, from me as well. I'm glad we reached a resolution. Thanks for the kind words, especially since I got confused at the end with the source of the complaint against PEM! LOL. As for your question about the blanking that's going on in the Trinity Christian Academy, I'll defer to MelanieN's experience. I'm intrigued by the situation at the TCA article. It does seem to be a notable controversy. There are plenty of sources for it, so that's not the problem. Careful wording worked for us on the creek issue. Hopefully that could help with the TCA article too.m.cellophane (talk) 07:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)m.cellophane[reply]
I definitely understand being protective of your work, so no worries. I'm just getting started with editing here. I finally pushed myself into it when I was working on my music collection and using the discographies and albums here. I'd like to learn more about copy editing, so I'm dabbling in that...writing for grammar and such.m.cellophane (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)m.cellophane[reply]

Chabot Creek

Wow, thanks for all your research on Chabot Creek! It was on the Oakland side of the border. We all called it Chabot Creek but there was no signage or bridges; if it crossed a road it did so in a culvert rather than under a bridge. You have to understand, in the 1950s creeks were pretty much ignored, or treated as a nuisance rather than a resource. (For that matter, in those days wetlands were called "mud flats" and were regarded as worthless unless they were filled in and developed. Times have definitely changed!)

You've got it with your mention of Chabot Street. The creek went right past Chabot School, which is at 6686 Chabot Road (just north of the freeway nowadays), and from there it continued above ground just a few blocks to Keith, where it went underground. Sorry I wasn't clear about the location of the culvert; it was at Keith Avenue, a block or two east of College and a block or two west of Broadway. (Keith is now the highway 24 frontage road, immediately parallel to the freeway on the south side.) From the map I think my "Chabot Creek" would be represented by the green line that closely follows the route of the 24 freeway. Is that a branch of Temescal Creek? I can't really tell.

I take it all those dotted red lines are culverts, and that pretty much answers my question; it's almost all underground now. And yet there does appear to be a segment above ground right under the freeway? What do you make of that wiggly green line that follows the course of the freeway?

From the map, the creek that surfaces near St. Albert's College is only a few blocks away but is more likely to be the Harwood (Claremont) Creek rather than my Chabot Creek. I never went to that creek; that campus is pretty much closed to visitors, it is just for priests and monks.

Thanks for the info! --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I see you used to play at Strawberry Creek. When I was in college I had a summer job near the western edge of the UC campus and I used to eat my lunch on the banks of Strawberry Creek. It was a nice creek even then, with some real, mature vegetation around it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


DYK nomination of Pacific East Mall

Hello! Your submission of Pacific East Mall at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Thelmadatter (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Friends of Five Creeks

Orlady (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abella

Hello Thisbites. I think the name of Arbella Shopping Center should be changed. Please note that the references which provide a name for the shopping center confirm that it's Abella, not Arbella. I've just added another reference link that says the same thing. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Berkeley Partners for Parks

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 Berkeley Partners for Parks 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 an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Berkeley Partners for Parks for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Acroterion (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of California Shuttle Bus for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dmol (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Crest

Hi. You improperly closed the AFD for Dick Crest. I've already fixed it up so no need to worry about cleaning it up. For future reference, if you withdraw a nomination, its probably best to let an uninvolved editor close the AFD discussion. Simply state in the AFD that you are withdrawing the nomination, and somebody willeventually be by that will close it. Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Livermore Extension

A tag has been placed on Livermore Extension, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Singularity42 (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Friends of organization

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

So generic as to be valueless, not even as a dictionary definition; no evidence that "friends of" as a concept exists outside of any specific usage. Fails WP:RS

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Friends of organization for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. andy (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Fire Department

Hello Thisbites,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks!

Baseball Watcher 01:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Richmond Fire Department

The article Richmond Fire Department has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Baseball Watcher 01:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving during AFD

Hi, just a note of caution; though there is no firm policy, moving while under AFD is considered by many to be poor practice as it can confuse notices and links or confuse the context of the original nomination. Better practice is to propose a move and mention it on the AFD. Cheers Fæ (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. –MuZemike 01:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.
  • Hi, I am disappointed to see the evidence of misuse of multiple accounts as the articles you have taken time to create and research have been interesting additions to Wikipedia and have definite value. If you are going to appeal, please take a few days to review and understand the guide linked above as well as Sock puppetry and Gaming the system. Any unblocking admin would need to be convinced that you understand what was unacceptable and that you are genuinely prepared to change your approach for future contributions. Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Surfing Madonna for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Surfing Madonna 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/Surfing Madonna(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 good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lynette Sweet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lynette Sweet 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/Lynette Sweet(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 good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wilma Pang for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wilma Pang 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/Wilma Pang(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 good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. andy (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thisbites for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. andy (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watermelon growing

Returning soon?
Hi, I hope you have enjoyed a change of scene. Perhaps it would be a good time to return and see if you can be a regular and interesting contributor again rather than staying out in the potting shed? Cheers Fæ (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saint David School

St. David School (Richmond, California) an article that you have participated in editing has been nominated for deletion a second time, the first time in in 2006 resulted in no consensus and it can be reviewed here. The current discussion on the removal of the article is located here should you wish leave your comment.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Grool

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

Unreferenced, reads like a dictionary definition

While all 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. Nouniquenames (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Richmond Fire Department

The article Richmond Fire Department has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced dead-end orphan with no claim to notability

While all 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. Nouniquenames (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Richmond Fire Department for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richmond Fire Department 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/Richmond Fire Department 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. Nouniquenames (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Law enforcement of the San Francisco Bay Area

Category:Law enforcement of the San Francisco Bay Area, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Valley of the Moon Commute Club for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Valley of the Moon Commute Club 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/Valley of the Moon Commute Club 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. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Katy perry e.t." listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Katy perry e.t.. Since you had some involvement with the Katy perry e.t. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. CycloneYoris talk! 06:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Moon Valley Commute Club" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Moon Valley Commute Club. Since you had some involvement with the Moon Valley Commute Club redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Men seeking men" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Men seeking men. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 5#Men seeking men until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. AFreshStart (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Marin County, Califiornia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Marin County, Califiornia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 2#Marin County, Califiornia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 05:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Naglee Park and Ride Lot

Notice

The article Naglee Park and Ride Lot has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability. This was literally a parking lot with a single bus shelter.

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]