Flying Fische

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Flying Fische, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ZooPro 15:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Iris Wedgwood, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Cind.amuse 11:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Dates

Please do not link dates to years, it is contrary to the policy at MOS:UNLINKDATES, thanks. NtheP (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wedgwood's

That's some pretty extensive knowledge of the Wedgwood's you have. You're not one of the family are you? NtheP (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hello, I see that you reverted my changes to the Thomas Wedgwood page.[1] I have undone your changes, because it is a disambiguation page, and per disambiguation guidelines, list entries should only be included if they actually include a link to page. Disambiguation pages are not articles, they are simply aids in searching. So if there is no link to information from an entry on a disambiguation page, then the entry cannot be included.

I would also point out that some of your edits may be considered disruptive. For example:

• You reverted another editor, but without explaining why
• You used an edit summary of "cleanup", when all you were doing was reverting
• You used another edit summary of "cleanup", when you were removing a cleanup tag[2]
• You did not explain your edits at the talkpage.

I do understand that you may be eager to add information about the Wedgwood family to Wikipedia. This is perfectly acceptable. The best way to do this, however, is to add the information to an article, and not to a disambiguation page. Simply include the information in an article, and provide sources which allow the information to be verified by other editors, and all should be well. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 18:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the rules. There was interesting and important information there that you removed, so I'm reinstating it. Thanks for your understandings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying Fische (talk • contribs)

Simply reverting to your preferred version is called "edit warring". It is a completely ineffective way of forcing changes to an article, as all that will happen is other editors will restore the policy and guideline-compliant version. If you continue reverting against other editors, your access to Wikipedia will eventually be blocked, and the article will be returned to a compliant version anyway. The better way for you to proceed is to find a way to include the information that is in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which means to put it in an article, not a disambiguation page. Another option would be for you to actually create articles on the other individuals, and then there would be links for the disambiguation page to point to. --Elonka 19:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well stop "edit warring" then?!? Flying Fische (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lil Tudor-Craig

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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. Travelbird (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh gee, thanks. Flying Fische (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lil Tudor-Craig

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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. Travelbird (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I have a page deleted for no reason. Flying Fische (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Travelbird (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop deleting perfectly good pages then. Flying Fische (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lil Tudor-Craig

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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. Travelbird (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. Travelbird (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Boyd (paediatrician)

The article Robert Boyd (paediatrician) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't be absurd - have you read it?

February 2011

Please do not remove Biographies of Living Persons prods from an article unless it contains at least one reliable source or was created before 18 March 2010. If you oppose the deletion of an article under this process, please consider sourcing the article or commenting at the respective talk page. Thank you. You need to provide a link to the source so we can verify it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not link dates to years, it is contrary to the policy at MOS:UNLINKDATES. Cind.amuse 12:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Lapidge

The article Michael Lapidge has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. The-Pope (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Michael Lapidge, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. The-Pope (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Two reminders about categorization arising from your article H. H. Bloomer Award:

1. Please only add articles to categories that exist. Adding an article to a non-existent category helps nobody.

2. DEFAULTSORT uses a colon, for example {{DEFAULTSORT:Bloomer Award}}, not {{DEFAULTSORT|Bloomer Award}}.

Please remember these in future. —Paul A (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Another reminder of the two above points, since it seems you're still prone to forgetting both. —Paul A (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please reference

You have been warned many times before, but please try to read and understand the following:

All articles on wikipedia should be referenced to reliable sources, but biographies of living people MUST be referenced, or they can be deleted

It has nothing to do with worthiness, importance or notability, it is all to do with verifiability. I would tag an unreferenced Nobel prize winner the same as an obscure footballer.

All you have to do is to add a reference from a reliable source (with enough detail such a Url or page number & isbn) and only then can the PROD template be removed. Removal again without adding a ref will likely result in your editing rights being temporarily revoked. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Linnean Tercentenary Medal, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The-Pope (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Phyllida Barlow

The article Phyllida Barlow has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. The-Pope (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Michael Lapidge

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Michael Lapidge

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Michael Lapidge, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Michael Lapidge. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Michael Lapidge. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Michael Lapidge. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

This is your last warning; the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Michael Lapidge, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Meph. 17:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I won't. He clearly is notable. The tags are pointless. Flying Fische (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see my edit summary here. Notability seems clear--but we need a source for verification. {{unreferencedBLP}} is appropriate as long as the WP:BLP lacks supporting sources. I think things have just gotten a little overheated and these small problems are quite solvable. — Scientizzle 17:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it libellous? Is it unverifiable? So what is the problem? Flying Fische (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BLP and WP:V. Material used to develop articles must be properly referenced, especially when it involves a living person. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The material was tagged because it is not contained in the cited source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Linking to Michael Lapidge

Hi there, I noticed that you've been linking a lot of articles to Michael Lapidge. I think this is fine in context, but be careful not to overdo it! For example, in this edit, you link to Michael and Lapidge in a citation - this will not get readers to the right article. Instead you want to add |authorlink=Michael Lapidge to the citation template. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, Flying Fische, I know you're upset. Please slow down for a minute. Michael Lapidge is not going to be deleted and adding a slew of links to the article isn't the reason why. The reason is because sources asserting notability have been cited. Moreover, linking in others' userspace[3][4] can sometimes be unwelcome (though I doubt it in these cases).

While those applying deletion tags were overzealous, editwarring with a bot and huffily pasting links all over the place isn't the most productive response. It's worth pointing out that Fabian Peake & Phyllida Barlow face the same unsourced BLP problem. Take the time to properly source the articles and let others try to help you as well. — Scientizzle 18:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Iris Wedgwood. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cind.amuse 22:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for repeatedly removing maintenance templates from articles without addressing or resolving the problems that the templates refer to. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  23:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ziheng Yang

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ziheng Yang, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://abacus.gene.ucl.ac.uk.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ziheng Yang

The article Ziheng Yang has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Guoguo12--Talk--  01:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE DON'T BE SO ABSURD. Flying Fische (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop abusive in response to cleanup template tags on articles that you have started. This is a wiki. ANYONE CAN EDIT ANY ARTICLE. Your articles generally do not comply with the policies, especially on verifiability and WP:BLP. You are getting better, but try to LEARN from the tags we add, as to how to avoid it in the future. Read the tags and try to think why they were added - believe it or not, we are not all stupid fools who are just out to get you. As the tag above says... "If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article." Regards, The-Pope (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh it's you again. FYI, I'm not being abusive. I'm not being disruptive. Those tags are nonsense. Why is it that one can add tags without justifying it on the talk page, yet one cannot remove tags, even though they're not necessary? Flying Fische (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

When the tags are self-evident - such as {{No footnotes}}, or {{BLP sources}} there is no reason to explain on the talk page. Fix the problem and anyone, even you, can remove the tags. I was the one who removed the proposed deletion tag as it wasn't valid - the university tags were a reference, but they weren't independent, inline or sufficient in my opinion. Adding an inline, independent ref was all you or anyone had to do. I can't read Who's Who online so I'll trust that it is an acceptable ref and probably never read that article again. Wikipedia relies on collaboration to work - using "silliness", "stupid" and "utter nonsense" in your edit summaries doesn't help. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Article ownership and poor edit summaries

Article in question: Ziheng Yang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per WP:OWN, "All Wikipedia content is open to being edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article." Your undoing of seemingly productive edits without an acceptable reason contradicts Wikipedia policy directly. You cannot revert other users' edits without explanation, even though you created the article. Furthermore, edit summaries like "must you try to destroy everything user@Hrafn?" ([5], different article), "this odyssey gets even more bizarre and ridiculous every day" ([6]), and "will people please look at what they're doing before they do something idiotic?" (above link) are uncivil and fail to explain the edit. Please stop your disruptive editing immediately. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That is all well and good. But since you too seem to be completely unable to read what's written in front of you, he's aFellow of the Royal Society - there is no need to question his notability. Flying Fische (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

PS - I will not comment further on the bizarre things to articles that they ruin because of their ineptness. Flying Fische (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

PS2 - I AM NOT BEING DISRUPTIVE. I HAVE BEEN MAKING POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS. Flying Fische (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouting is not helping your case. Again, you are missing the point completely. Your contributions are all very well, but this goes beyond the article's notability. Wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia, but a community of editors, and uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. In addition, please stop taking these things personally. I'm not trying to offend you by moving the stub template to its proper location—I'm trying to improve this encyclopedia, as are you. But please, stay civil and keep a cool head. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Florence Peake

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Florence Peake

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Florence Peake, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Florence Peake. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Florence Peake. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Florence Peake. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Florence Peake. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Florence Peake. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Florence Peake. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did with this edit to Florence Peake. RA0808 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No, i won't, because she's notable. end of story. Flying Fische (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so when the block expires. If you feel this block is unjustified, you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That s absurd. Show me one edit where I have vandalised Wikipedia, ConcernedVancouverite should be banned for trying to delete articles that he has not right to delete. Flying Fische (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You see all of the notices on this page? It is one continuous onslaught of people who are trying to either (1) delete articles or (2) plaster them unnecessarily with unjustified notices whinging about how they're "not notified properly". Flying Fische (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

FF, you're missing the main point here. Nobody is allowed to remove speedy deletion templates from articles they have created. If you want to prevent an article you created being deleted, you need to present a clear argument on the talk page, and try and address the issue itself by including proper sources, if the article is notable and well sourced no admin will delete it. Edit warring to remove the tag, with a bot no less hence the large number of templates, is just disruptive--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As you can see here, another user has calmly presented a valid argument as to why the article should be kept and as a result it is no longer up for deletion, had you done so yourself on the talk page, you wouldn't be blocked--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

well I can't do that now because I've been blocked for "vandalism". I haven't been vandalising anything. The real vandals are those trying to delete stuff with no good reason. Perhaps if ConcernedVancouverite wasn't so concerned and actually knew something about art and dance he would have a right to comment, but as far as he can tell he's just wandered in with his great big size 9s and walks all over other people's good work. But it isn't related to that; her father is notable too, and her mother (even though for some reason the list of her mother's children was removed from her mother's article for no good reason - that's real vandlaism. Flying Fische (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Just relax, CV is not trying to vandalise hes was simply doing what he thought was best, just as you are, try to assume that its nothing personal. Also you are not so much blocked for vandalism as you are blocked because you were being distruptive--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I AM PERFECTLY RELAXED. And I'm not being disruptive. If anything, I was trying to do you a favour by stopping an article being unnecessarily deleted. Perhaps ConcernedVancouverite should go and do his thinking about doing something good elsewhere. Flying Fische (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You might want to go over a few things while on your block. The notability guidelines dictate what subjects can and cannot have articles on Wikipedia. You have also been advised in the past that you do not own articles; anyone is allowed to edit any article that you create as long as those edits do not violate policies on verifiability, vandalism and biographies of living people. Also, you would have avoided this block if you would have simply followed the rules, read the instructions given to you for contesting a speedy deletion in the notices above, and followed them. Neither you nor I are exempted from the rules, no matter how "stupid", "idiotic", or "absurd" you think they are. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. (1) she is notable and fits the guidelines (2) it says so on the page I wrote (3) I know I don't own articles. Look at what a good job someone has done to Lil Tudor-Craig. I created that, but someone else has finished it. I expect someone else would also finish off other articles - if they are given a chance to grow and not squished by ignorant fools. Flying Fische (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouting "I AM PERFECTLY RELAXED" suggests the exact opposite. We're not out to get you FF, this isn't personal. You're really missing what we're trying to say here. Put simply, You create the article, you can't remove the tag. Even if you think the tag is wrong, you just can't.--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another thing: Please stop the name calling. Not only is it a breach of WP:CIVIL and No personal attacks, but also users who might be on the fence about whether or not to help you out will be dissuaded from doing so. Continued name-calling is a one-way trip to an indefinite block, and if that happens you will have no way to prevent the article(s) you have created from being deleted. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Florence Peake for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Florence Peake 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/Florence Peake 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. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you "think you're doing the right thing" but really you're not. Flying Fische (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Phyllida Barlow for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Phyllida Barlow 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/Phyllida Barlow 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. Cind.amuse 09:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

In general, a person or organization added to a list, as on Florence Peak, should have a pre-existing article to establish notability. If you wish to create such an article, please confirm that your subject is notable according to Wikipedia's notability policy. Thank you. Cind.amuse 09:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Ziheng Yang. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cind.amuse 16:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Phyllida Barlow, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Maeve Gilmore for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maeve Gilmore 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/Maeve Gilmore 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. Dave
Please help!
17:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djkernen (talk • contribs)

Florence Peake

After your comment at the Phyllida Barlow AFD I had a look at the deleted Florence Peake article, and to be honest I can understand why it was deleted, so I would advise caution regarding accusing other editors of wrongdoing (please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Peake may well be notable but the article appeared to concentrate on her ancestry rather than the reasons why she as an individual might be worth having as the subject of an article. Having notable ancestors (even multiple notable ancestors) is not generally considered an indication of notability. I've done a quick search for independent sources discussing her work but didn't find much - if you can find some then you may be able to establish her notability, and if you can do that I suspect that the deleting admin may be amenable to restoring the article to your userspace so that you can make the necessary improvements before it's restored in article space. If no such sources can be found then an article is unlikely to stay. --Michig (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of John Galsworthy (diplomat) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Galsworthy (diplomat) 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/John Galsworthy (diplomat) 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. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sir Ralph Wedgwood, 4th Baronet

The article Sir Ralph Wedgwood, 4th Baronet has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anthony Galsworthy

The article Anthony Galsworthy has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Arthur Galsworthy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arthur Galsworthy 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/Arthur Galsworthy 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. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Antony Wedgwood for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Antony Wedgwood 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/Antony Wedgwood 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. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Maeve Gilmore

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 Maeve Gilmore requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Dave
Please help!
19:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

wtf?

Talkback

Hello, Flying Fische. You have new messages at Kuyabribri's talk page.
Message added 20:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ziheng Yang, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cind.amuse 08:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Florence Peake

In view of the fact that deletion of Florence Peake has turned out to be more controversial than I expected, I have restored the article and reopened the AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A few words of advice

Flying Fische, while I can understand your frustration with articles that you have created being tagged for deletion, please bear a few things in mind. Firstly, even if the subject of the article is clearly notable in your eyes, it needs to be clear to others who may not be familiar with the subject, or even the country that the subject is from. It is important therefore that the article makes it clear why the subject is notable, and allows other editors to verify that the facts presented are correct. We probably all have our own views on what constitutes notability, but the views that are likely to prevail here are summed up in Wikipedia:Notability. The best way to allow others to verify facts is to make it clear what the source of each fact was. I've edited Ziheng Yang to add inline citations if you need an example. If others question the contents of an article please don't take it personally - while there are very many editors here who always add information in good faith, there are unfortunately plenty who intentionally add incorrect statements or create articles about fictitious or non-notable people. This means that new editors are likely to be challenged to provide sources for any claims of notability and is not a reflection on you personally. If you bear this in mind when creating articles and make sure that accepted notability criteria are met and can be checked by others via citations then the articles will be less likely to be targeted for deletion. I would also urge you to stay calm and try not to get upset when people place tags on your articles or leave notifications here, as it isn't likely to encourage them to help to improve the articles, and could lead to further blocks if you continue to respond the way you have been doing. While you may not agree with them, it will usually be worth taking their comments on board. If you concentrate for the time being on articles where you can cite several sources to establish notability it would help to avoid conflict with other editors. Regards. --Michig (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Today's Articles for Deletion (and a bit of advice, old chap)

Iris Wedgwood, Robert Boyd (paediatrician), James Dixon Boyd, Fabian Peake, and Lil Tudor-Craig. It would behoove you to stop treating Wikipedia as though it were your own personal invention for the cataloguing of non-notable biographies relating in some way or another to the British peerage. Your continual adding of these non-notable entries constitutes disruptive editing. Furthermore, your name-calling, your threats, your vandalization of tags, etc., go completely against the spirit and the policies of the project. You have already been blocked twice, yet over the past week your emotional outbursts appear to be escalating dramatically in megatonnage. Try not to take everything so personally, old boy. Otherwise you appear to be headed for a permanent block. Qworty (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all of these nominations, but both Robert boyd and James Dixon Boyd clearly pass WP:PROF and I seriously doubt the competence of the nominator. DuncanHill (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

They do, but some noms also fail imo. FF's articles are very poorly done, often just one line. There is no point in this sort of thing, & he should do fewer, better articles (unfortunately his longest efforts tend to be on the least notable subjects). Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandal Qworty, please don't patronise me. Flying Fische (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop the name calling. You've been warned multiple times already. Meph^talk 17:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What name calling? I merely stating obvious facts. Check out his "contributions". Flying Fische (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Atmoz (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What incident? Flying Fische (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's currently at the bottom of the page in the section titled User Flying Fische vandalizing templates despite three warnings and two previous blocks where an editor has proposed blocking you indefinitely. -Atmoz (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Flying Fische. Thanks for starting these articles, at least some of them are quite notable. Some suggestions - please read "notability" and the other notability guidelines carefully to get a good idea of what belongs in Wikipedia and what doesn't. Significant coverage about the subject of the article in several sources independent of the subject is normally required for us to have an article. Also read "biographies of living people" to understand our strict rules on writing about living people. One particular rule in place since March 2010 is that all new articles about living people need to have a citation to a reliable source, which generally should be an independent, secondary source like a newspaper, book, or magazine, though some online-only sources are fine. Please also read "no personal attacks" and "civility" - although it's irritating when new article patrollers jump on new articles and try to get them speedily deleted without really thinking about it, responding calmly and without using insults is the best approach. You will end up getting blocked if you call editors acting in good faith "vandals" and "idiots", however much you feel they're wrecking the articles. To avoid your new articles getting blitzed like that, you could start them in user space, e.g. at User:Flying Fische/New article. I could help you to source them and expand them, just drop me a note on my talk page if you want any help. More generally, would you be interested in being "mentored" by me? Fences&Windows 18:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move

You recently performed this page move without prior discussion. First of all, describing Marlow as a "non-notable footballer" is rather subjective and in fact incorrect in the Wikipedia sense, since he's notable enough to have an article about him. Rather worse is the fact that the move broke a lot of links to the article. I have therefore reverted the move and instead added a hatnote to the Martin Barlow article, enabling those more interested in math than soccer to locate the correct article. Generally speaking, I'm beginning to doubt that there is any such thing as an uncontroversial page move, and I would encourage you to use the requested move process next time you think that articles are inappropriately named. Favonian (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see, it might help if you get his name right - it's Barlow, not Marlow. I do not see how the footballer is particularly notable. I'll leave it now. Flying Fische (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Genealogy information removed. Completely appropriate to the article.

Do not add genealogy information to the articles. It is not appropriate and is specifically mentioned in "What Wikipedia is not".

Do not claim in your edit summaries that any edit you disagree with is vandalism. This is an abuse of process and will be reported if it happens again.--Dmol (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No. You listen to me. IT IS appropriate and you are basically removing valid material, which is vandalism. Flying Fische (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Charles Darwin Trust

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Charles Darwin Trust, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charles_Darwin_Trust.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Charles Darwin Trust

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Charles Darwin Trust, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Charles Darwin Trust

A tag has been placed on Charles Darwin Trust, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Meph^talk 18:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Charles Darwin Trust. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Per this [7] ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Matthew Farrer

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Matthew Farrer

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Matthew Farrer, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion notice, which will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Leslie Farrer

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Flying Fische. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry (Fawlty Towers).
Message added 19:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Charles Darwin Trust, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Original research

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Norma Percy. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

oh, it's you again. WTF are you on about this time? Flying Fische (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please try to calm down and stop making personal attacks and, more generally, responding in un uncivil way or you will be blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue removing Biographies of Living Persons prods without addressing the issue, as you did with Norma Percy, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 20:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I AM CALM!!! I really want to know what user:ConcernedVancouvrite's] Concerns ARE before he deletes/vandalises perfectly goof articles that I start. Flying Fische (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

On the above two notices I posted on your talk page, please note that I am not contesting if those claims are in fact accurate. But in the first case the article you cited did not say they led the campaign or were "central" to the campaign. It merely stated they were part of it, so I updated the language pending a citation that strengthens their role as more central. If you can find other sources to establish their centrality then by all means add them and update the article with the stronger claim. On the second there were claims of awards won without any citation to establish them. Adding a reliable source to establish that she won the awards would be helpful. Otherwise it is an unsubstantiated original research claim. Thank you.ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you remove Biographies of Living Persons prods without addressing the issue, as you did at Norma Percy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 20:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

NO. YOU BLOODY LISTEN TO ME. WHY ARE THOSE TAGS ADDED? NO REASON. IF YOU WANT TO DELETE IT DO IT PROPERLY. Flying Fische (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Removing deletion tags from biographies of living people is considered to be vandalism unless that article contains one or more reliable sources. IMDB is not a reliable source, because it is written by the general public and not subject to quality-control.
You were warned many times not to remove that tag, and you kept doing it. That is vandalism. If you wish to complain about my behaviour, you are welcome to start a thread here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents – though I wouldn't recommend this. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 21:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THEM TO BE ADDED. IT's NO MORE A BLEEDING ADVERT THAN I AM A GOAT. Flying Fische (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't WRITE IN CAPITALS. It is considered to be shouting. Reliable sources are required for legal reasons, and because it is Wikipedia policy. I don't understand what your reference to 'adverts' is about. I can only re-iterate that removing the tag was vandalism and you should never do anything like that again. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 21:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I AM CALM. I DON'T VANDALISE STUFF. IT IS PREPOSTEROUS THAT YOU DO. I CAN WRITE IN CAPITALS IF I LIKE. Flying Fische (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for adding citations to the Norma Percy article with this edit [8] to document her awards. I encourage you to continue to go the extra mile and provide reliable citations when making claims about notability, as you have started to do in this case, and when possible doing so with citations from secondary sources it would be even better to establish reliable sourcing. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis and original research

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Charles Darwin Trust, you may be blocked from editing. Please re-read the sources cited and keep the claims in the article matching what is actually said in the sources. If you can find additional sources to establish a more central role, then you can modify the article to make those claims. I also reverted the advert tag as the article did not read like an advert. It does need additional sourcing though to establish the notability of the organization. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Really, I don't understand your concerns. Either I'm being a bit stupid, or you're not explaining properly. Flying Fische (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, the article you cited listed the trust as being involved in a coalition of organizations to back the bid. The article did not mention them leading the coalition or being central. They very well may have, and you appear to have knowledge that they have taken such a role. But to make that claim if you can just find a reliable source to document their centrality as opposed to just being part of the coalition that would be helpful and then you can modify the language to calling them central instead of the current phrasing I restored. Make sense? If not, let's discuss it more before any more edits on the article so we don't have to go back and forth through the edits, ok? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And trying to denigrate the Trusts' role by implying with innuendo that it wasn't important isn't, how? Flying Fische (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to help you understand how the version of the article made claims above what were justified by Wikipedia citation standards, and get the article to the level where it will stop drawing attention from other editors with tags. Providing reliable citations is all that is required, and I'm trying to help you understand how to avoid having difficulties with new articles you create by providing proper citations to back the claims written in the articles. Not providing citations, or quoting citations inaccurately by adding additional knowledge you may have outside of those citations, likely will result in other editors either tagging or removing the claims. It is better for everyone if the articles are written with proper citations and claims backed by citations to avoid any need for additional involvement by the original author of the article or other editors focusing on quality control. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. You'll notice with the Norma Percy article mentioned above that once you properly cited the awards the article is no longer the subject of tags and no additional edits are removing content, because now it is sourced. Doing the same for this article (and others) by citing proper sources to establish claims of notability will go a long way towards helping get all of the knowledge you have about various topics into the collective body of knowledge at Wikipedia in a way that it can be consumed reliably by others - which is something we both want. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Lucy Raverat

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lucy Raverat, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.lucyraverat.com/page10/page10.html.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright poli cy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can copyright a list can you? Flying Fische (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright covers only expression, not facts. The creator of the list on the Raverat website would have to argue that Wikipedia's list (now in the article) infringed on the presentation (expression) of his. Although the threshold of originality required for copyright is very low, it seems unlikely.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the section in question, but anyone can re-add it if they'd like. Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 21:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I responded to you here, but I just wanted to make sure you got my note - please don't remove {{unreferencedBLP}} tags from the article. That tag is better then me just BLP PRODing it, right? Nolelover ^{It's almost football season!} 21:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lucy Raverat

The article Lucy Raverat has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Kevin (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

William MacGregor Henderson

Hi Flying Fische. I added a few more sources and expanded the article slightly. Just a few thoughts on creating stubs: personally I think the way to think about stubs is that they are useful as an indicator of articles that Wikipedia should have; William Henderson is a good example. However, they are also a base for further development by others who can gather the sources needed to make a fully-fledged article. I agree that for example, being made a Fellow of the Royal Society is a good indicator of notability but someone is only made a FRS based on their contributions to science, so even a stub must make some mention of their career and why they were considered for Fellowship in the first place. I know I wouldn't even think of creating a stub unless I could get enough for a hundred (or two) words at least, plus four or five sources. It takes more time, but it provides a starting point and, if the stub is well-presented, an impetus for others to make a good article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I understand your point. Thanks for your work. I think the biggest bit of the stage to writing a full article is actually creating it. It is better to have a short stub with references, rather than nothing yes. Flying Fische (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, sometime yes, sometimes no; they can be useful, but very short stubs aren't all that helpful and most often get deleted or ignored, as there isn't enough context for others to realise the importance of the subject.

But here's a question: why leave them as stubs at all if there are sources out there to expand them? I came across the William MacGregor Henderson and the Norma Percy articles while looking at new articles (and in particular unpatrolled articles) at Special:Newpages; I suspect many of the Wikipedians leaving messages above were doing much the same thing :), But just to take Norma Percy as an example: when I came across it , it asserted that she was a documentary maker and had won a few prizes. I admit the name rang a bell for me anyway, but even the fact that she won those awards indicated (to me) that there was almost certainly going to be more coverage of her, which of course there was. All that was needed was a simple plain-vanilla Google and a Google news search to provide enough sources to expand the article beyond a stub. The article now notes that the importance of some of the documentaries she has produced; the various awards the documentaries have won including the Emmy and BAFTA; the recognition of her contributions as evidenced by lifetime awards from BAFTA and the Royal Television Society; her place of birth (actually she is American born and raised, although living in England since the 70s, so English as a description needed expansion) and so on. I have a couple of things to add tomorrow. I am not under the illusion that my additions have come close to realising the potential of the article; I am more than happy to let other people to improve on what I have added, including streamlining my bulldozer prose used to assemble the article, as I would happily admit I am not a natural-born article writer.

The point here is that all the sources were easily found so why not avail of them? Much the same could apply to the Henderson article or a few others mentioned above. Biographical entries in various dictionaries of biography tend to be terse and frequently miss out on the detail that other media sources include. The importance of Henderson, in essence the reason he was notable and the reason he was made a Fellow of the Royal Society was explored in his obituaries. My suggestion is before creating an article is to check if you have exhausted all the available sources, even if the only sources available to you are available online, and avail of them; frequently you will be able to get the article beyond the stub status just by using online sources. Granted the intricacies of veterinary science part of the article will probably need to be checked and expanded by someone else, but even a mention and linking of his work on foot-and-mouth might be enough for someone more knowledgeable on the subject to start digging for more sources. So my view is while stubs are sometimes necessary and useful, at the very least they should cover as much as the subject as at all possible. And bear in mind that short stubs tend to languish for years so it is better to try to get it past the stub stage in the first few edits. And keep asking yourself, why is this subject notable; forget about the awards and fellowships until you establish why they have them and when you have done that say it in the article. Wikipedia will be around for a while, so don't rush things when it comes to article creation FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Norman Davis (academic)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Norman Davis (academic), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://thesweetlife.com.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Even the bots have it in for you! I left a note about the false positive on Coren's talk page. Meph^talk 18:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

Please be reminded that your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Tudor-Craig constitutes a personal attack, and was not appreciated by the Wikipedia community, and you may be blocked for making any personal attacks in the future. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Accusing an editor of "vandalism" for removing unsourced, contested, non-noteworthy (per WP:Articles for deletion/Fabian Peake) material as you did here is unacceptable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

you are a notorious troll and vandal too Hrafn. Flying Fische (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? Last I checked I wasn't the one who had recently been repeatedly blocked for vandalism and disruptive editing. Your comment is both a violation of WP:NPA and ridiculously WP:POT. ROFLMAO! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well you bloody should be. I have not been repeatedly blocked - only once and that was lies. Flying Fische (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me as if you've been blocked twice, both times for perfectly legitimate reasons. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 19:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London)

The article Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Aside from being entirely unreferenced, this article doesn't seem to meet the general notability guideline because this 'silver medal' doesn't seem to have been covered "directly and in detail" by multiple reliable sources. A Google Books search, for instance, throws up a lot of primary sources, and a few throwaway references to people having received the medal, but there is no concerted discussion of the medal itself as a subject that I can find

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. ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 09:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Stub tagging

Thank you for now ensuring that your articles have at least one reference, can I ask that you try to also include a WP:Stub template as well, if the article is just a snippet, rather than a complete biography. This will help those who want to expand articles from certain topics to find them. Stub templates are notoriously hard to remember, so I generally go to the parent category, such as Category:British people stubs and look for the template names there, or in the more specific occupation based stubs. I just added {{UK-med-bio-stub}} to the Hugh de Wardener article that you started. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London) 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/Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London) 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. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 12:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No. DO IT THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS. Flying Fische (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AFD is the "proper channels." ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 12:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well you tried to vandalise it through back passages. I doubt this planw ill work - why don't you go and do something useful?

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  13:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This block is in response to a request for intervention on my talk page. The diffs provided there, and the exchange above, indicate that you have no regard for Wikipedia's community processes, and that you have continued to disrupt them by removing applicable cleanup tags without addressing the issues they highlight, attacking others by mislabeling their edits as trolling and vandalism (notably your most recent edit, [9]) and removing WP:BLPPROD tags without reliable adding sources, in violation of WP:BLP. I will unblock you, or another administrator may unblock you on your request, if you convince us that you understand these problems and explain what you should have done instead (and will do in the future when facing similar situations).  Sandstein  13:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

What? Why? Because a troll asked you to? I HAVE NEVER VANDALISED WIKIPEDIEA, AND NEVER WILL. IF YOU WANT TO TRY RTO DO SOMETHING USEFUL WHY NOT BAN TROLLS LIKE QWORTY, or TreasuryTag? Flying Fische (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have done NOTHING wrong Flying Fische (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

I also note Treasury Tag has vandalised Talk:Zoological Society of London, and NOT GOT BANNED. Hrafn is scheming at talk:Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London) and DOES NOT GET BANNED. Flying Fische (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

AND SOMEONE HAS COMPLETELY VANDALISE Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London). Flying Fische (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

FF, if you are referring to this edit [10] please note that was because the list of names provided were for an entirely different award as noted in the edit notes on that diff. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

UNBLOCK ME NOW

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I read the Guide to appealing blocks. Is doesn't say what to dow ehn the block is COMPLETELY OUTRAGEOUS.

Decline reason:

NO, IT DOESN'T. SO I'LL TELL YOU WHAT TO DO: SIT BACK AND TAKE YOUR MEDICINE (BY SAYING "THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?" OR SOMETHING SIMILARLY CUTE), OR WE'LL HAVE TO TELL YOUR PARENTS YOU HAVE BEEN A VERY BAD BOY. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

Flying Fische (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I DO NTO ACCEPT THE VALIDITY OF PREVIOUS BLOCKS EITHER.

ALSO I AM COMPLETELY CALM. Flying Fische (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I would moderate your tone a little, the admins have (and will use) the power to block you from editing this page; and short of emailing an admin that is the only means of communicating your wish to be unbanned. Take 5 minutes to read through the rules and reasons behind your ban and think why they have been applied to you. You are an intelligent person, this makes your ignoring the rules even more onerous. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Small hint: any unblock request that contains, or is immediately followed by, text in ALL CAPS is likely to be dismissed without consideration. I strongly suggest you read some policies and come back in a day or two when you've calmed down. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Chris Darwin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Darwin 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/Chris Darwin 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. Bgwhite (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

<harrassment redacted by administrator> 19:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No skull-dancing please. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

New cfds regarding "Old Fooians"

Two new cfds propose the renaming of some twenty categories. Most of those who took part in last year's cfd "Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom" seem unaware of them, so I am notifying all those who took part in that discussion, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Please consider contributing here and here. Moonraker (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)