User talk:History21

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. When you vote on the Votes for Deletion pages, you should a) bold your vote (using three apostrophes either side of your vote, click "edit this page" to see how), and b) Date stamp your entry, by typing four tildes, which will then produce something which looks like this: Nick04 22:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Enjoy Wikipedia! :) Nick04 22:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you want to propose something for deletion, follow the instructions at the bottom of WP:VFD --Henrygb 18:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Congrats on tracking Mid Century War. :) Mgm|^(talk) 18:40, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

France

It was kind of you to notice vandalism. However, you can revert vandalism yourself by just hitting the article history, editing the last correct revision, and saving the page. David.Monniaux 18:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati Slaughterhouse

Why did you create this article, purporting to be about an historical event taking place 40 years in the future? Is it from a work of fiction? If so, you need to state this clearly, along with which work of fiction it comes from. If not then you should be aware that this is little more than vandalism. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Hi, I'm MNewnham and I troll the new pages looking for articles that contravene the wikipedia page creation guidelines, and obviously yours does. What you are looking for is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial which is directly accessible from the help button on the sidebar.

Could you please blank the page you created and insert an {{empty}} tag into it, to ensure its speedy deletion. - MNewnham

Questions for Wikipedia

If you have questions that you need assistance with, you can ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. --Durin 21:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

signature

Hi, could you please sign your name by typing ~~~~ as is the usual practice at wikipedia rather than linking to the nonexistant History21 article (I made a mistake and put a welcome message there!) -- Astrokey44|talk 00:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The message you left on User:Terenceong1992's user page

Please leave messages on User talk pages instead, as your recipient will not be notified of it otherwise. I've helped you move it to his User talk page. ;) — Kimchi.sg | Talk 17:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up about the First Family issues. That AfD is getting a little crazy; but thankfully most people seem to be assuming good faith. In future, though, if you could post on Talk pages, that would be ideal. Thanks a lot, and see you around. Batmanand | Talk 15:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Family redirect

Did you find out who redirected it? I think it's a worthwhile project, it just needs to be trimmed a little. A good starting source for info on this is [1]. I have an even better source, but it's a 12 volume book -- yes, actual book. Also, the White House has a section on this as well (but beware the Grover Cleveland entry -- it's had the same error for 5 years, and after contacting them three times, I've given the hell up.) If you need help, feel free to let me know. Jim62sch 11:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steny Hoyer

See the talk page...there's a difference between being the President of the Senate and a "member of Congress". If you chose to un-revert it, I don't have the energy to continue. -- J1729 01:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The South

If you think the South is disgusting, Wikipedia is not the place to espouse your agenda. We deal in facts, not opinions here. WillC 01:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editing archives say otherwise about your beliefs. Furthermore, talk pages should be relevant to the respective page. If you want to spout off, do it on your about page. WillC 02:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page

Your vandalism of my talk page has been reported. WillC 00:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland

Hi. First off, some techincal advice. You should sign your comments by using four tildes like this "~~~~" (without the quotes). It will automatically convert into a link to your user page and a timestamp when you save the page. Secondly, if you put single square brackets around a URL it will display as a note like this: [2].

Secondly, I just want to make sure that you don't take my edits to the cultural identity section of the Maryland article as an endorsement of your version. While I agree that it is important to have a discussion of how Maryland fits into various regions culturally, Wikipedia is not a place for making an argument. Instead of presenting the argument that Maryland is not part of the South yourself, find someone else who subscribes to that point of view and describe his/her views. That's the heart of the Neutral Point of View policy. Instead of taking one side or another in an argument, Wikipedia articles are meant to Neutrally describe the various sides of a dispute. Try to keep that in mind when you're editing. NoIdeaNick 03:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I sure did notice. If you'd like to go ahead and report him do it, because I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to go ahead with that. The biggest problem I have with him is the logical fallacies he uses in justifying himself, as in, I said the Northeast is densely populated and the South is mostly not. Therefore Maryland's high population density and urban-ness brings it closer to the North. However, he removed my paragraph on population density and urban-ness because apparently he read what I said as saying that all densely populated places are Northern and therefore using my logic he concluded that Mexico City could be considered Northern and that the paragraph was invalid. He also suggested that because I said the South is poorer than the North, I am elitist and have disdain for the region, which is simply not true and which I found personally insulting; he drew an illogical conclusion there as well. So by all means, since he is preventing the section of the article from getting any better, if you'd like to try and have his editing abilities restricted do so. But at the same time, the original section was very pov and though I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia policy, at least three of the paragraphs required extensive reworking, I believe, so it's probably for the best that they're not in the article for the time being. Drewbwhite

No truer words have been typed: YOU ADMIT YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH WIKIPEDIA POLICY. If you were, you'd know what I was doing was making you use logic and documentation to prove your point. You have done neither. WillC 03:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meddling?

I stopped reading after that. What, do you think your Northern-ness is somehow superior to Southern-ness? You and others have disregarded repeated admin warnings to keep your edits NPOV and balanced. You need to study and then follow Wikipedia policy. I don't care if you have sources for your edits if the info has no business being in the article in the first place. WillC 10:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bloo a bloo a bloo bloo bloo. Lemme know when the south rises (again) --Nugneant 22:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editwars

Hiya. Got your message on my talk. I feel for you - I'm currently dealing with a couple of sad Metro fanatics who cannot tolerate any infringement of their Metro fluff. --Nugneant 22:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey if you have a problem with me why dont you step up and just say it to me directly, or is that to much for you to do, like not adding pov to articles. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 02:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could communicate in English, I would. Sadly, I'm not fluent enough in Retardese to effectively get my point across. I base this assumption on 1) Your inability to master effective use of the apostrophe, 2) Your inability to distinguish "to" from "too", and 3) Your flagrant ignorance of comma usage. Having said this, I can try what little Retardese I know: A bloo. A bloo a bloo bloo. A bloo bloo bloo bloo. --Nugneant 11:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue and the Grey 2: Electric Bugaloo

Hi there-

Flattered as I am at being called into assist in this epic struggle, I think I will pass. For one thing, this is the sort of petty, POV edit warring that makes Wikipedia not fun for me, and which I avoid whenver possible. Perhaps more importantly, though, from looking at the edit history, I think the current text on the page -- which, as near as I can tell from the history, is not your preferred version -- is much more accurate than the text you've been trying to get there. Maryland is a very transitional state. There are urban and suburban areas that feel very northern, and there are rural areas that feel very southern. Maryland was a slave state, and a state that had a very strong strand of Confederate sympathy during the civil war (see the Baltimore riot of 1861, among other things). Perhaps most importantly, up until the 1960s Maryland had Jim Crow laws that were typical of southern states but absent or much milder in the north. (Have you ever seen John Waters' Hairspray? It's about the end of segregation in Maryland, among other things.)

Some of the things that you seem to want to put on the page -- that MD is northern because of it's great schools, for instance, or northern because it's so Democratic -- are just non sequiturs. Lots of places in the south have good schools, and if you think the whole state of Maryland has good schools, you clearly don't live in Baltimore City where I live. The south as a whole was solidly Democratic as recently as 30 years ago, and many places, particulary urban areas, still are; and the powerful Maryland Demcratic machine dates from the era when the "Solid South" was Democratic.

Please don't think I'm saying this as some sort of redneck Confederate apologist. I'm about as far left politically as you can get. But I've lived in the north, and in the west, and in Maryland, and Maryland is not the north -- not all of it, anyway. It's not the south, either. Not everything is so cut and dried. --Jfruh 22:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I respect the fact that you've obviously given this some thought, a few counterpoints: 1) Every single state in the union, with the possible exception of Rhode Island (mostly because it's so damn tiny), is a "transitional" state with the features you mentioned. Examples: California includes ghettos, really rich gated comunities, hick towns (such as Watsonville, or virtually any city more than 100 miles from the coast), and the Bay Area. New York? Same deal, if you've ever been to upstate New York you'll see. And of course, the reverse is true too - a lot of Texas is really nice, progressive even. I've heard some less-than-terrible things about Birmingham, Alabama. Even Okla-dumbass-homa has some okay parts of Tulsa. So I honestly believe that you're about 180 degrees on this one - your statement, while eloquent, was somewhat meaningless, whereas History makes some valid points (the most valid of which is that if you (speaking in the generic, non-threatening second person) call me a "southerner", I will tie you to the back of a pickup truck and drag you to your death while throwing beer cans out the window to hit you in your skull. --Nugneant 01:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there are plenty of people in Maryland who would do the same if you called them "Northerners." Why does your attitdue (speaking in the specific 2nd person here) get to decide? My objection is that you seem to equate "southern" with "things you don't like". The fact that Texas and Alabama and Oklahoma have areas that are urban and progressive doesn't make them any less "southern." Being "southern" in the United States means "being from the south." It doesn't mean politically conservative, rural, having shitty schools, etc., as you so eloquently point in your description of other parts of the country (like upstate NY, where I grew up). --Jfruh 02:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Okay...

My issue with that is that if you have aproblem with some way i do things, then say it to me directly, if you have to say it to some one else to make some kida of point, in which you did, then how am i supposed to have any respect for you. I'll admit, spelling is not one of my fine points, never has been, pardon me for having an slight dixeselia, neither is typing, i dont have the best of corridination or dexierty in my hands so typing is not an easy nor allways enjoyable thing for me, and those are just 2 of some of my several of issues. Regardless, i take an informal tone in discussion, in which my major focous is just to get my idea or popint across, am not particaulary intrested in how it looks, thats a differnt sittuation witrh regards to articles and i welcome other useres to come behind me and fix my mistakes, as their are thous out their that are metter at wrtiting then my self.

As for call you a vandal, i dont recall doing so, but if i did then it was a mistake, As vandalism goes per say i have my own views. Though your actions are not much to be talked about either, in that you baiscaly took your own pov that you stated on the discussion page in the form of a rant and then sourced it afterwards, still levring it very pov ish. Issue of the content aside, which i dont belive that you mad a convincing argument on, you actions are and have been no better then the other use involved, and i have let him know that i am less then impressed with his actions as well. I also am not thrilled with you msg of other users, apprently at random, and the msg that you left them, which to be honest was nothing less then misleading. I am glad to seother authors who are knowledgable on the subject are comeing to make edits to the article as well as engage in discussion, but i will warn you that the addation and re-addation of pov can be consider vandalism, regardless if it sourced or not. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland

It appears that your comments on Talk:Maryland have crossed the line from advocating for a particular version of a page into the realm of personal attacks. I would suggest that you refrain from asking User:WillC to catch opposums for you and from calling him "a silly redneck." Aside from the fact that it violates Wikipedia policy and is generally not a nice thing to do, it doesn't help your case.

As far as you want there to be a cited, NPOV discussion of the regional classification of Maryland and its culture, I agree with you. However, as any discussion of Maryland's cultural identity and regional classification must note that there are many in Maryland who consider themselves far from southern, it must also include the fact that there is also a history of connection with the South and that the rural culture of Maryland can be very different from the culture in the Baltimore-Washington corridor.

Please don't try to make the Wikipedia article into an argument in favor of classifying Maryland as a solely Northern state. While I understand that you feel strongly about your cultural identity and that of the state of Maryland, there are arguments to be noted on both sides of the classification issue. The NPOV policy dictates that we should include both without favoring either. Please join me in trying to fashion a version of the page under this model. Thank you. NoIdeaNick 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I am not at school, I live in Maryland and have lived there my entire life. While I would never consider where I grew up Southern, Maryland is a diverse state, and the Eastern Shore, Southern Maryland can be very different from suburban DC and Baltimore. Maryland was a slave state at the time of the Civil War and probably would have joined the Confederacy if it were not for the fact that Washington, DC would then have been completely surrounded by Confederate states. It is not ridiculous to suggest that Maryland has some Southern history and culture. The census bureau does classify is as Maryland as one of the South Atlantic States. While I understand your strongly held opinion, Wikipedia is not a place to promote your view. There are clearly reasons that Maryland is sometimes considered Southern, and those reasons ought to be noted, in the same way that the reasons Maryland is often considered non-Southern should also be noted. This is the heart of the NPOV policy. NoIdeaNick 18:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster

I never went to WHS. I go to a high school in Houston, Texas. WhisperToMe 00:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only edits I made to the page involving moving some content and identifying the school district. I edit many articles around Wikipedia to improve them. WhisperToMe 00:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potomac River for the US Collaboration of the Week

Hey there, I noticed your recent work on the Potomac River article and was hoping you'd consider voting for it as a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week. Thanks! --Caponer 21:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll help

Contact me via the Wikipedia email service. I don't want our conversations read by certain people. TruthCrusader 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I spotted this disucssion on the AfD page, and thought I'd offer a suggestion (and doubting that I'm one of "certain people" who the above fellow wants to avoid =) ). I personally don't see notability in the article on the "leader" of the dynasty, since that seems to be interpretive and less encyclopedic than others. As for the individual articles on the family members, I would strongly suggest removing the infoboxes, and ensuring that verifiable sources are included in the articles for each of your references. Pasting the list of refs onto the AfD discussion is probably not the best thing to do - putting them into the articles that are up for debate and mentioning on the AfD discussion page that you've made those changes is a far better way to go. Sourcing and verifying the statements made in the articles will go further towards proving the individual members' notability in the grand scheme of things. Good luck. Tony Fox (speak) 20:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments in Eyre AfD

Hi. Regarding some of your comments in AfD for George Eyre et al and AfD for Heller Dynasty‎, I'd like to leave you some feedback that belongs more properly here than in the AfD itself.

Firstly, as I commented in one of those, you should really be putting all the references citations into the articles, not the AfD discussions. By putting them into the article, you strengthen the case for the articles being kept; in the AfD it becomes very messy and harder to follow the flow of AfD discussion. The way things are, you seem to have put more work and content into the AfD discussion than into the articles themselves, which is a bit silly.

Secondly, you need to ensure that the references you use are reliable ones as MCB mentioned. The AOL pages and so on simply aren't good enough.

Thirdly, you do not do your case for keeping the articles any favours by playing the patriotism card. The paragraphs "As an American patriot..." etc. are not only logically weak but, to be frank, offensive - they rely on emotional arguments (patriotism) that are not shared by all WP editors, and actually conflict with WP policies and practices such as maintaining a neutral (not biased) point of view, using reliable sources, and counter systemic bias arising from the demographic makeup of the WP editorial group e.g. Americans, technophiles and the young being over-represented, Asians, technophobes and the old being under-represented.

You are of course free to believe (and state your belief) that America is the greatest country in the world, but you cannot expect everyone else (even all Americans) to share that belief. Using it as a basis for argument discourages me from agreeing with you, and I'd expect it would have a similar effect on many other editors, particularly those of us who are not American. Some of your statements in those paragraphs are not just hyperbolic but wrong. For example, you said

America ... has granted the people of Earth the very conception of liberty.

which is simply ridiculous. The concept of liberty existed long before Colombus, let alone anything definably American.

It is quite valid for WP to cover people and topics from American history; the primary question is whether they are truly notable topics or notable people, not whether they are simply American.

In summary, if you want the articles in question to be kept rather than deleted, then your best course of action is, in order of priority:

Ensure that you are only using reliable sources as the basis for your work.
Insert references and citations into the articles themselves.
Argue your case in AfD discussions succinctly (1-5 lines, not multitudes of paragraphs) and logically from WP policies and practices, not emotionally from a point of view that is not shared by all.

I hope this helps. Regards, Paddles ^T_C 09:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jehu Eyre

I have put the {{hoax}} tag on the Jehu Eyre article. Please see the article's Talk page. I have only done a couple of minutes' research on the net and have found many insonsistencies. If I began writing letters to such places as Laurel Hill Cemetery, would they be able to tell me whether or not Jehu Eyre, who was born over a hundred years before the cemetery was built, is buried there? Would somebody in Philadelphia be able to tell me how Jehu Eyre was a child at the Eyre Mansion when it wasn't built until the beginning of the 19th century? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Taft1908.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Taft1908.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Presidentandfirstlady.jpeg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Bushandbarbara1992.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bushandbarbara1992.jpeg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Fordfamilysometime.jpeg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Jackieandjohn.jpeg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Absolutebeautypersonified.jpeg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Maryland

Even though, during the Civil War, Maryland found itself to be a southern state, most Marylanders don't see it that way anymore. However, the southern part of Maryland, especially on the border of Virginia, tend to consider themselves southern.

My father is from Tennessee, while my mother is from South Carolina, definite southern states. Having visited there numerous times, I finally concluded that Maryland is nothing like the south, and tends to be much more liberal and -- How do I put it nicely? -- mean. Marylanders tend to be very self-centered and boring, unlike southerners who I have found tend to be more giving and kind nowadays.

If it was up to me, I would put Maryland in the Northeast, but putting it as a "border state" is also, in my opinion, correct. Maryland seems to be split into Southern Maryland and Northern Maryland, two completely different areas.

I hope this has been helpful to you. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 15:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hoaxing will stop

Any more of this hoax crap at Aria, Knowlton Estate, Eyre/Heller garbage, and you will be permanently banned from editing. Is that clear? User:Zoe|^(talk) 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - and Eyrecourt

Hi - I've just had an interesting time working on the Eyrecourt Castle article, and am grateful for a couple of the sources you gave. (I've presented them differently to emphasise that they are published print sources uploaded to the web!) It looks as if you've spent more time than I have on the subject, and I wondered if you had any print references for what was on the land before the Eyre family arrived. One or two things I found made me doubt that the 17th century house was an expansion of an earlier building - (it wouldn't be unusual for a new landowner just to leave the old place to rot) - but I didn't find anything clear-cut. Unfortunately, a page like this, despite the splendid photos, just doesn't meet encyclopedic standards of verifiability, unless I'm missing something - seems to have no sources, no authority, and spelling errors - and the word "purchased" seems implausible . . . see Act for the Settlement of Ireland 1652. By the way, I'm sorry to see you've ended up feeling hurt about things here. Please don't be put off contributing - misunderstandings can be sorted out - or will fade away if you keep making good contributions. (My personal style for coping with conflict!) This is my talk page if you want to leave me a message about Eyrecourt. Hoping you will feel like returning to editing soon . . . --HJMG 13:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for offering to look at your sources for something definite about the O'Madden phase pre-Eyrecourt - that would be really helpful if you have time. As for your query - I'm afraid I'm not the best person to ask about things not directly related to content/articles and can't offer the kind of help you're looking for. There's a 'how to resolve conflicts' section on the Community Portal page if you want to look into that. It might be easier just to make some good solid contributions to articles where you don't have any personal involvement and let things settle down. I notice you reposted some material on the Grange Estate which caused problems the first time round - and where the source you give only confirms part of it. Have you checked out Wikipedia policies about finding somewhere else to publish new research and about the need for references for everything in an article which could be challenged? Good luck with your historical studies. --HJMG 11:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Estate

Leave out all of the lies and all of the hoaxing. There is a Grange Estate, but not a single reference mentions Jehu Eyre or the Hellers or Peterses, and if you put that in there, I will delete the page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff you put in was word for the word the same stuff that I deleted as a hoax. You are treading on thin ice. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't post lies, and you'll be fine, but the next lie you post will be your last. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last post on this subject. Assuming good faith does not mean repeatedly letting trolls create hoax articles. You have been given good faith for months now, but you and your friends and/or sock puppets have reached the end of that good faith, and there will be no more. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 17:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn Arquette

You have recently created the article Kaitlyn Arquette. This was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate the article: if you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 05:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted according to WP:CSD - namely, it was tagged with the {{nn-bio}} template. When creating biography pages, it is important to assert that the subject is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry; those that don't are tagged like this was, then (usually) deleted on sight. If you disagree with the decision, please take a look at the Deletion Review page I linked you to, above. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 05:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spreadin' the luv

You're not the only one who has trouble with Hipocrite -- that guy's a real piece of work. Both rootology and I have both had trouble with him recently -- next thing, he'll be accusing you of being a sockpuppet and other heinous acts. Let both of us know if you have any trouble with him, and we'll come to your aid. Morton devonshire 06:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Family of the United States

Thanks for the message on my talk page. Unfortunately, I have zero experience or knowledge of the subject, so my help in reviewing the matter would be limited at best. I recommend you make a request for a third opinion here. Hope this helps! RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 06:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi History21. It does appear that your additions were reverted because they weren't sufficiently sourced: see Wikipedia:Citing sources and there have been some concerns about the verifiability of your previous edits to the encyclopaedia -- whether those concerns are fair or not I don't know. As RandyWang says above, the place to go for a clued-up third opinion is WP:3O. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 08:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my posting

Please be more careful next time. Socafan 02:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite RFC?

Rangeley, History21, would either of you be interested in joining an RFC regarding Hipocrite's recent edits? (I've drafted one here). I don't want to start a big confrontation with Hipocrite, who I'm sure is a fine editor, but I find his reversions troubling. Thanks, TheronJ 21:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC re History21 Reverts and Comments

Rangeley, History21, TruthCrusader:

FYI, I've named you all as parties who attempted to resolve the issues raised at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hipocrite.

Thanks, TheronJ 22:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Bushandbarbara1992.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bushandbarbara1992.jpeg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howch e ng {chat} 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Carterhalloween1978.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carterhalloween1978.jpeg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howch e ng {chat} 00:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You ain't the only one...

I noticed a comment of yours on Morton Devonshire's discussion page.

I seem to be the target of some kind of vendetta, and recently it seems that all of my contributions have been swiftly deleted.

You are not the only one, my friend. I quickly noticed, after discovering Wikipedia and beginning to make contributions, that there are claques (very much like those of high school girls) who decide that they are going to control a particular article and anyone contributing who is not a member of their little group is mercilessly attacked and reverted. And if you have the termerity to take the wikipedia motto "merciless editing" seriously, you will be verbally dogpiled.

It's happened to me on a number of articles, esp the one on the article on the Canadian band Rush. It also happened with the article on Windows 95. I added a brief few sentences about how the GUI was really invented by Doug Engelbart and the first commerical development was done by Xerox in the mid-Seventies. That articles claque descended on me like the Net version of high school jocks and anything I attempted to contribute--despite it's accuracy and citation of sources--was ruthlessly eliminated.

Wikipedia is a good idea, but the refusal of those who own to control these claques is robbing it of much of its value--especially since it seems to be dominated by a Left-Liberal mindset that is utterly intolerant of conservatives daring to contribute.

I examined the "First Families" article and found nothing objectionable about it. Your only "crime" appears to be presenting conservative presidents in anything less than a hostile and vicious light.

Wikipedia is allowing itself to be made into a joke despite the heroic efforts of people like Morton. Only the articles on (some) hard science topics seem to free of these adolescent jealousies and the Left-Liberal political monopoly. I am sure that if you had attacked Reynaldus Magnus and the Younger Bush the Lib claque would have raised you "shoulder high".

PainMan 02:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFL

(I mean, I'm really Democratic)

That's hilarious!

I also loved your unintentional use of the word "Reds" as in "Red are about as welcome here as..." Because, of course, Communist called themselves (and were called) Red. As a really, really conservative Republican, I find it screamingly funny that we Right-wingers are know called "Reds" you Liberals are called Blue. Ahhh, the irony. With the destruction of the USSR, "red" and "blue" just don't have the meanings they used to.

I took a long "holiday" from the news--and I've been a newsjunkie since I was nine of ten--I'm now 35--but I got so sick of the relentless partisanship and constant warfare, I just tuned out.

I'm a lifelong supporter of Israel and the recent terror attacks by Hezbollah and the continuing attacks by the so-called "Palestinian" Authority have rekindled my interest (I believe we should quit pretending we have any kind of "neutrality"--"To be neutral is to be indifferent"--and believe we should sign a formal alliance with Israel.

I would like to join your group about Hippocrite (sp?) 'cept I'm not sure how. Could you leave a tutorial on my discussion page?

I'm sick of these little cliques trying to rule articles. It's absolutely absurd. I re-edited (really re-wrote) the article of the fraud commie Rigoberto Menchu. I included references, citations (from the NYTimes even!) and people still reverted my reversions. It's absurd.

I have no problems with the fact that you're a Democrat. After all Zell Miller, one of my favorite politician, is a Democrat (lol).

Bottomline: no one group, or person, should be allowed to dominate an article and conspire to exclude edits they don't like (esp one's that cover up facts and include what is clearly POV because it supports their weltanschauung; I've had particular trouble with this on the Dennis Miller article, for example).

Whatever else we may disagree about, I think we both believe that these claques must be stopped.

As Will Durant wrote a long time ago, "The first condition of Liberty is limitation. [Without it] freedom dies in chaos." And that's what's happening to wikipedia. Which I wouldn't want to see. But how much more can people dedicated to the truth take?

PainMan 03:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reds & Such

1. Israel

Terrorists have no right to defend themselves. The Lebanese people and government are collaborators of Hezbollah. They allow Hezbollah to hide weapons and terrorists in their homes. The blood of those 56 people killed in Qana is on the hands of Hamas and the villagers who support them. Not one drop stains the hands of Israel. The Palestinians, whether Fatah or Hamas have one goal: Israel's destruction and the murder of every Jew in Israel. The PLO charter still has never been changed to recognize Israel (and Jews') right to existence (the plank calling for Israel's annihilation was merely put in temporary abeyance. (Check this website for a translation of the PLO's REAL plan, the one they are still following. http://www.netaxs.com/people/iris/plophase.htm)

We have to recognize facts here. Israel is the victim and has been throughout--and before--her history (the oft-cited bombing of the King David Hotel by Menachen Begin in the 30s was preceeded by a warning to the occupants. In 1922, in Hebron, the Arabs* without warning murdered every Jew in the town and these Jews were not Zionists, not immigrants from Europe or Russia. They had lived there for three thousand years. The tiny number of examples of excesses by Jews (Kfar Darom, Beit Yassin [sp?] et al) pales by comparison to Arab terrorism (*the term "Palestinian" is, in reality, completely meaningless, they are Arabs who live historical Israel, whose ancestors invaded beginning in the 8th century).

When have the PLO or Hamas ever given warning to the victims of homicide bombings? To a huge number of Americans terrorism was an abstraction, something that happened in Israel, a truth that took 9/11 to disabuse us of.

2. Ironies in our Politics

There are a lot of ironies in our politics. The Democrats, self-proclaimed party of civil rights were the creators of Jim Crow, American Apartheid. Republicans the party of small business and freedom were the originators of big government (the Interstate Commerce Commission, etc, during the Guilded Age.)

One could, of course, write a book about such contrast and switches, even the very languages. "Liberals" in the 19th Century supported individual freedom & freedom of commercial enterprise, now they are the opposite. Conservatives opposed those same things back then, now they defend them. Just goes to show us how meaningless labels are. In Roman history both the "popular" party (faction really) and the aristocratic faction were both led and controlled by aristocrats (the formers leaders, from the beginning, using plebian discontent to further their own political ambition, culminating, of course, in the triumph of Caesar and his grand-nephew).

Freedom and Equality are implacable enemies. The 19th was the century of "freedom". The 20th of "equality."

I would quibble, slightly, about the "rar"ity of "rigidity" in our politics. There have been many such periods. The most recent one, even bitterer and more hateful than the present day, was, of course, the Vietnam era (when Kennedy supported large tax cuts and massive defense increases!).

The worst era, was, of course the Civil War. But people so often overlook the Revolutionary War. And the struggle over whether to approve the Constitution. Both periods were filled with invective and deep division.

Fortunately, we are not at the point where Senators are beating each other to a pulp in the well of the Senate; fortunately neither Congresspersons or Senators feel the necessity of going armed to sessions as they did in the 1850s.

I wonder, though, if we could reach that point? Certainly there are people on your side and mine who definitely desire to push it in that direction. Most, however, like me and yourself, I'm assuming, are like Rush Limbaugh, we wish to crush the other side at the ballot box, not on the battlefield.

Finally, the things that are seldom mentioned are the ones the parties agree about: overspending, the refusal to rein in the bureaucracy (corporations don't run this country, the Federal bureaucracies do). Every year 15,000+ pages of laws and regulations are added to the Federal register--regardless of which of the parties controls Congress and/or the White House. The name calling goes on but on these issues business as usual prevails as does the pork (look at the Farm Bill, both parties stuffed as full of useless spending to a record level).

3. Your Edits

It will take me sometime to read the entire debate so it may be a while before you see an opinion with my name on it.

Finally: it's nice to have a discussion without the usual partisan name-calling & bickering.

PainMan 04:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we're not going to convince each other....

While I could eviscerate every point you made, History, what, really would be accomplished? Neither of us wishes things to disintegrate to name calling. Especially since we are not going to convince each other no matter how much digital "ink" we spill on the matter.

I'll just add a few things. I believe that we (the GOP that is) will pick up a few seats in both Houses. Even if the Democrats were to take both houses--a virtual impossibility since the polling shows both Congressional cauci to be equally unpopular and since the House re-election rate is still something like 95%. And, in the Senate, more Democrats are up than Republicans. These factors favor conservatives. Sorry for digressing, even if the Dems take both Houses there will be no impeachment, let alone conviction. That's as much a fantasy on your part as it is for me to predict a 2/3rds majority in the Senate in 2006. Not a possibility. Even if did happen, you would see such an explosion of "Red" anger that would literally shake this country to its foundations.

I realize I just broke my own proposal, but I still think it's a good idea. We aren't going to change each other's mind. So, let's stay on the pages on which we agree. I'll say one thing. You were not kidding when you said you were a hardcore Left-Liberal! I would be your mirror opposite politically. Not that I march in lockstep with anyone (opposing the utterly failed war on drugs but support on that is hardly a monopoly of conservatives or Republicans). But after the disgraceful behavior of many Democratic leaders in the 2000 debacle (and their accomplices in the Drive-By media) I will never vote for a Democrat under any circumstances.

And I don't think you should leave out the anger in our base. We are outraged and disgusted by the baseless accusations and behavior of what Rush Limbaugh accurately calls the "kook base" of your party. (Though, admittedly, we are not witout our knuckleheads, they're just far fewer.) We've been hearing about the anger in your base since 2000 yet it has never appeared. Nor will it in 2006 or 2008.

The best thing for us to do is work together on the things on which we do agree: stopping the claques from highjacking wikipedia articles. I believe we are on the same page on that issue.

On politics, we aren't going to agree, I think. Except that I would hope you support destroying the terrorists whose goal is to kill both of us; scumbags who don't care anything about the political differences you and I consider important.

On Israel: check this excellent column by the mother of an Israeli soldier in the Israeli paper Ha'aretz. It says everything that needs to be said and better than I could. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744436.html

Left out my sig accidentally.

PainMan 17:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Senior High School

You wrote that you were "active, or had a role in Westminster Senior High School." Which edits to the page were yours, other than the vandalism? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

I guess I should put my money where my mouth is. History21, assuming that you're not engaged in sockpuppetry and hoaxes, I'd be happy to help you with some of the Wiki practices that are tripping you up. Would you be interested in a little mentoring?

Assuming that you are, here's the first lesson -- images.

If you're going to upload images, and you're welcome to, read Wikipedia:Image_use_policy carefully -- it will save you a lot of grief.
In your specific case, what you're doing wrong is not entering enough information on your image pages.
1. Description: Although not necessary to "save" your images, it's a good practice to include a description. See here.
2. Source: If you got it from the web, include a line that says "Source:" and a link to the site you got it from.
3. Creator: If it's a credited photo, include a line explaining who took it, and, if they took it as an employee of a company or government. (This is just my suggestion, AFAIK, but it will be helpful in explaining the rationale).
4. A copyright tag. This one is essential. If you think that your material isn't copyrighted, or is fair use, you need to add one of these tags. Assuming that (1) you got them from the White House site and (2) are sure that they were taken by White House employees as part of their duties, then {{PD-USGov-POTUS}} is probably the tag for you.
5. Rationale: Explain why your chosen tag applies.

If you do those, your images should be ok. Thanks for reading, TheronJ 16:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To qualify further, if you are sockpuppeting Lilyana, then (1) I wish you hadn't, because I am going to feel like a fool for wasting everyone's time, and (2) I would still be willing to mentor you, but the conditions would be (a) that you admit all of your sockpuppets (if any) before the checkuser comes in, (b) that you agree to make your best efforts to start understanding and abiding by Wiki procedures, and (c) that you give up editing the contentious webpages for at least 6 months to a year while you get some good, non-controversial editing experience under your belt.

I don't know if you're sockpuppeting or not, but even if you are, it's not too late to work on becoming a good editor. Alternately, if you're not, I apologize for any implication. I don't mean to insult you, just to give everybody a fair shake. TheronJ 22:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I would have tried to mentor you if you'd admitted the sockpuppetry before the checkuser came in. If you're a well-intentioned kid who picked up some bad habits, I recommend you take a couple years off -- if you're an experienced wikipedian playing some game, it's a wierd one. TheronJ 01:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Troubles

No, thanks, I don't care to disclose my location on Wikipedia. If you've gotten yourself into trouble with administrators it's your fault and I would rather that you didn't bring me into it. The users accusing you are reprehensible (hence my "Fuck you" to Zoe), and you're probably an innocent user who I would have tried to help had you not accused me of, "ridiculous vandalism" without any kind of justification. How does that make you any different than the people attacking you? Good luck, but do me a favor and don't throw my name around to draw attention away from yourself.

User: Lilyana

Image copyright problem with Image:Nixonscirca1968.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nixonscirca1968.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

Of course I'll say something on your behalf. Where is this discussion taking place? I don't really know you very well as a user, but I can see that we've worked on many articles together. You're from Maryland as well, correct? I am very sorry to hear about what's going on with some of your articles. I've encountered rudeness on Wikipedia, but never quite like that. Please show me where to go and I'll say something.

Joan53 23:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Joan53[reply]

Just to let you know

You might wish to review this. I have withdrawn my Outside View in the RfC at this time. rootology (T) 00:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

puppet thing

I'd recommend taking it up I guess with the link I gave you, there. I've never been involved with a case of this before. rootology (T) 02:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have been outed ...

I have no good faith left in you. The abusive comments you placed on my Talk page would normally qualify you for an indefinite block. But I'll let that go so long as you only make valid edits from now on. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just be aware that I will be reviewing every article you edit. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your Torinir sockpuppet still exists. For now. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why Torinir hasn't been outed yet is because the request wasn't there at the time that Mackensen did the check. I added the request after the fact. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Kennedysaugust1963.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kennedysaugust1963.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK 11:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of First Family of the United States

An article that you have been involved in editing, First Family of the United States, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Family of the United States (2nd nomination). Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello History21! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 524 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

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

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jan Schlichtmann

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 Jan Schlichtmann, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]