User talk:B.Wind

NOTE to bot owners: I am now semi-retired and will be unlikely to respond to bot-generated posts in a fashion the program might even consider "timely." In addition, all bot-generated posts here are subject to removal without archiving by yours truly at any time. Posts that border on overkill will be returned to the sender's talk page. For a ridiculous example of such, check Talk:Miami-Dade Transit. B.Wind (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Anybody interested? From time to time, as employment requirements permit (and I take a break from researching and writing about amusement parks from about a century ago - don't get me wrong. I enjoy it, but it's a long, tiring challenge), I plan to add a series of list articles, each on the professional (American) football teams from a given city. Anybody interested in this project is recommended to see my plans at User:B.Wind/List of professional American football teams in (city). B.Wind (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers such as yourself:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nice with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have any specific Wikipedia editors in mind when you posted this on your User page, or is it just a coincidence that SPUI seems determined to win at all costs? Where did you find that quotation? It's great! 147.70.242.39 00:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it's an original that I first posted in my www.xanga.com quotation page. The story behind it I'd rather not mention here, but I assure you that although it might fit that "certain Wikipedia author" (in which I would jokingly say "You win" immediately after saying that to him - if it weren't for his being most highly unreasonable in the revert wars that involve us). But I wouldn't say specifically who it is as it could violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, although he doesn't believe either of them apply to him. B.Wind 04:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page looks good, your work is appreciated!--Son of Somebody 20:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks! There's much more to do, but it makes a nice break from writing road articles and getting in the middle of some hand-to-hand combat with a few of the more opinionated editors (and one in particular) who think they own all the road articles. This is therapy to me, and thank you for your support and indulgence... B.Wind 00:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rock your comment on the Salo in Space AfD. Keep up the good work. - Francis Tyers · 10:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Gladys Holiday Greeting
		For your hard work, insighful opinions and overall contribution to Gladys the Swiss Dairy Cow, I hereby award you this Thank You, along with my sincere hope that you have a wonderful holiday season. james.lebinski 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Don't let them scold you, though. It's irresponsible to let a piece of crap sit around just so someone can claim faim with a process. Edit it when it stinks. The fewer hours or days or weeks any piece of crap is accepted on Wikiepdia the better the whole thing is.

There's a lot of scolding going on, though, on Wikipedia. I think there are a lot of people who don't socialize outside of cyberspace and seem to think that adults working together scold each other. I call it the daddy syndrome. Only time I've ever seen it used outside of cyberspace (one adult scolding another for a minor grammar matter) it brought days of laughter--as it should. --Blechnic (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey B.Wind, thanks for quick response, I'm not sure if a should answer here, anyway I'm still in doubts about Rail transport in Argentina, it still redirects to Transportation in Argentina, it seems that Rail transport in Argentina has not been released. I consider mysef a good editor but not really "protocol saby. We would like to canalize all rail articles into one, as other countries, Argentina is experiencing a rail revival, Will it be bold? it'll be spectacular, we have a good team. Kind regards ~ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Moebius, if you have an overall article covering Rail transport in Argentina, go ahead and write it (with sources) - that's what WP:BOLD says. For the other articles that you mentioned, put them in [[Category:Rail transport in Argentina]] and you'll be fine. Redirect pages are not "released" - but unless they are protected, and I didn't see any protection on this one, they can be overwritten easily. Just write the article after clicking "edit this page." I hope this helps... and happy writing! B.Wind (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• …OK, "think" i got it, will get back on monday if i have any problems, the other articles are just links, thanks and happy weekend! ~ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you all, in regards to "Rail transport in Argentina", something that seemed so hard turned out to be so simple, Rail transport in Argentina is on it's way, thank you all for being so cooperative,, Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Redirect Barnstar
		For the huge effort on going over all the entries on the huge list of redirects here to nominate them for RFD and clean up the original list. Enric Naval (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to commend you for this article - very interesting and well put together. I'm a bit of an NFL history buff and I had never heard of this - I'll be checking out those old issues of "Coffin Corner" for sure. Majorclanger (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for the good word (finding the information was an unexpected pleasure while I was researching something else)... and thanks for the fine-tuning. B.Wind (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to write and say thank you for the Early Pro Football Barnstar. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking about me when you seen this. I will work on the infobox and get some more information on the page...along with adding to whatever appropriate templates need added. Will give you an update when I am finished. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 11, 2009 @ 05:46

• Many thanks once again! I left a link to a dab page (low power) as I wasn't sure which was the most appropriate. B.Wind (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem :) I added the FCC related information to the infobox, added the page to the Flint area radio template and added it to the List of radio stations in Michigan page. The station didn't have a website, so I couldn't add that, but all and all, it is up-to-date. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 11, 2009 @ 06:00

I completely agree with the banners you put up now. How did you run into this article? It seems to be in a little invisible corner of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Whenever I run into a little "writer's block" (I like to write about old professional American football teams and leagues, old amusement parks - mainly those named Luna Park - and, until the Wikipedia politics went bad there, Florida State Roads), I visit WP:RfD and go on prod patrol (the link to the appropriate category is on the bottom of WP:AfD). I think I've checked out about 300 articles or so over the past 10 days. Any way I can make a quick remedy, I tend to be bold... but most of the time I defer to those who know more than I. If something is salvageable, I hope the tags will be enough of a prod (pardon the pun) to move it in the right direction. B.Wind (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you nominated the article for deletion, so I guess I'm just here to say thanks for the saving me the hassle! Haha. I was mulling over nominating it myself, but you beat me to the punch. And just to add: thanks for mentioning the WP:2S rule in the nomination. I so wish I had learned of this rule months ago.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 15:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it's an essay of mine, but I've stated it (and its cousin WP:1S) numerous times in deletion discussions. I wouldn't mind it being a rule, but it seems that there are too many fans of one- or two-sentence "articles" to make it a guideline or a policy. Thank you for telling me that I'm not alone in this. B.Wind (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're definitely not alone! In fact, the question of whether a one- or two-sentence article should be kept is very relevant to what I do on Wiki - which is clean up fashion model articles and either verify their notability or nominate them for deletion. Tina Zajc is a perfect example of running into this problem. She won a somewhat notable title, but is a statement of simply that enough to have an article? I don't think so.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, guess what just went on the prod pile? Let's see what happens in the next few days. B.Wind (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The prod was contested, so that didn't really work out! Of course, none of what the editor added contributed to any sense of notability, but I have the feeling that if such an article had been taken to the AfD instead (where the rationale for deletion would have been analyzed), editors would have just reiterated the policy that an article being very short isn't justification for deletion, which is unfortunate.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it did in one sense. The article is now (at least) a valid stub. It actually has substance, unlike that one sentence sliver that existed when I prodded it. At least now it's defensible. While I'm not sure that being Miss Slovenia one year meets to notability bar (and merely participating in Miss World clearly is not), and this goes into hobbies that are irrelevant, I would only urge further cleanup and expansion at this point. The additional sources (even though three of them are in Slovenian) are certainly a plus. I'm adding a couple of tags, though. B.Wind (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was created on the 12th, but it wasn't transcluded onto the log until the 20th. Hope this clears it up for you. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Good job in catching this AfD. Keep up the good work! Malinaccier (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. You're doing a good job. Keep it up! Malinaccier (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have went through the user's contribs and came up with about 160+ other redirects, some dating back to February, before the stations were required to switch to digital and before the FCC ruling that allowed stations to change their callsign to -DT officially. Please see here for the complete list. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I applaud the diligence, but WP:CRYSTAL no longer applies. Only those stations who transmit only analog signals would have a valid "reason" for redirect deletion per WP:RFD#KEEP as "-DT" variations are being used in promotional materials, legal identifications, and the like in the same way that extraneous "-AM"s and "-FM"s are often added to radio call signs. While you are technically correct, this is a case in which the "-DT" variants would be likely search items (and thus useful ones). I strongly urge withdrawing the bulk nomination and resubmitting any that are analog-only in nature (note that we now have digital Class A and low power stations, as well). B.Wind (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See all the stations broadcast in digital, they have to. But they are not required to carry the "-DT" call sign. Like WTOV-TV, it broadcasts in digital, but has a "-TV" callsign. WTVQ-DT broadcasts in digital, but has a "-DT" callsign. It was essentially up to the station whether they wanted to go with the "-DT" callsign or not. Per naming convensions, we name the pages as the FCC names the station. Which is where my main concern comes in, I fear readers will think the station carries a different callsign then what is showed, hence my RfD. Remember, an RfD, is just for discussion, not deletion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The articles themselves should have the offical calls - no disagreement there - but the issue is the redirect (note that per WP:RfD, every nominated redirect must be tagged with {{rfd}} - you've just started!). I think that you're going down a path that doesn't need to be traveled, and the mass nomination could do more harm than good here. Making sure that the article is in the right place is far more important than asking everybody if these dozens of now-commonly-discussed/used "unofficial" names would make worthwhile redirects. FYI, WSVN actually shows both WSVN-TV and WSVN-DT on its promotional literature, its Web site, and its broadcast legal identification. This is merely one of many examples of using multiple suffixes by the station itself, and that must be accounted for by Wikipedia, if only by the addition of redirects. B.Wind (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked on IRC and was told to nominate one and then bulk the others...I did that here. I don't feel like RfD'ing the whole lot of 160+ articles....that would be beyond my time. Let's just let the discussion take its course and see where it goes. If it gets to a point where it looks like I am on the "losing end" of things, I will withdraw it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Keep up the good work in the meantime! B.Wind (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just closed Electric Parks' RfD as "keep and make into a disambig page". I read your note, and I'll perform any sort of admin move for your work, if needed. Just leave me a note on my talk page describing what you need me to do, for this close. I would've moved User:B.Wind/sandbox1 to Electric Park, but it appears that you have two separate pages going on in that sandbox. Let me know what you want to do. Killiondude (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you - I'll start cleaning it up so it can stand on its own. B.Wind (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you just redirected White City (Chicago amusement park) to itself. Heh. I deleted it because a bot tagged it, but just wanted to leave you a note, because you probably had other intentions. Killiondude (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops! It should have gone to White City (Chicago). To avoid a G4 situation, may I prevail upon you for a "resurrection" but to the correct target? Thank you. Time for a break, I see... B.Wind (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done :-) Killiondude (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks. I'm surprised that it doesn't happen more often with me. BREAK TIME! B.Wind (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment really threw me for a loop. When I saw it I exclaimed, "No way! I searched for pages like that!" before I realized that I was clicking on a redlink. As far as "WP:NOT (it's not a compendium of miscellaneous computer programming)", at times that seems more proscriptive than descriptive. Anyhow, thanks for a jolt then a laugh. -- ToE^T 07:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I live to make people smile. Glad you enjoyed it (I used to program in FORTRAN, but that was long ago and far away)... B.Wind (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As crappy an owner that you may think that he is, (and I agree in many respects with this sentiment) there is one thing that I have to give him — however grudgingly — credit for. He payed for that stadium in Detroit with private funds; he didn't waddle up to the public trough the way most of those obscene owners do.
--NBahn (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to leave you a note because your name came up in this ANI thread. Whether you comment or not is not a big deal to me, I just feel like it is common courtesy to let others know when their name has been dropped on noticeboards. Killiondude (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I see you're not very active as of late. I'm sorry to see that. I hope you're doing well! Killiondude (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry I missed it. Professional/employment considerations must trump volunteer work; hence my extended absence and continuing reduced presence. Thank you for watching my back, Killiondude... and my IP workmate who posted below. B.Wind (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a wikihug. I know you've been busy in RL, but things haven't been the same here without you. Perhaps you'll be back once the grades are posted...

I know you don't get the acknowledgment that other Wikipedians seem to get all the time, but you deserve them nonetheless. Come back soon! 147.70.242.43 (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again for the good word. I haven't given up yet! B.Wind (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident‎, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. Since my RfD-prompted addition of a mention of Warmergate was quickly reverted, I reported it to the deletion discussion and plan not to touch either again. B.Wind (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no see, BW - the place (especially the early pro football section) seemed empty without you.

Now, I have a favor to ask - while I was on Special:ShortPages patrol I found about a dozen malformed redirects posing as "list articles" and prodded them. Since they were quickly removed with no improvement whatsoever, will you kindly nominate them at WP:AfD for me? Clearly list articles with only one item in each of them do not belong here, and I'm sure you'd agree with me on that.

Again, welcome back... and thanks for the idea for the new series you mentioned on your talk page. It looks interesting. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just seen the list of articles created by the person who did the "___________ in Italy" series. There are dozens of them! 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Will check it out when I can - it makes no sense to have so-called "list articles" with only one entry each. B.Wind (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there; just a note that the speedy tag has (ironically) been deleted, and the PROD restored by a reviewing admin. I concur with him that it is very difficult to see how this constitutes "vandalism"; you may want to think about that in future new pages work. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck. How did that survive for so long? AFD time. (Only 2 GNews hits? Even United World Chart had more.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I have closed the RfD with the result to convert the page to a disambiguation page, or stub. (Technically it fails the policy requirements for being a disambiguation page though). I have left it as a disambig for now, to facilitate both potential targets. Please do feel free to convert the page to a stub, and thanks for volunteering to do so! Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Putting it together now. Thanks for the word. B.Wind (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no possible way that the house organ of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce[1], "Free Enterprise" could be considered a reliable source. It is a self-published source, replicating the views of its CEO, Mr. Donohue. If Mr. Donohue were quoted in a reliable source on this subject, it would be a different matter. It does not even remotely satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. I don't see how you can seriously claim that it does.

The other passage is not supported by the source that you proffer, which is this[2]. I'll replicate this post on the talk page of the article. That paragraph is pure original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.226.239 (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and advice Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 15:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello B.Wind. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sportsgasm, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• N'importe - it's gone now. B.Wind (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping in shaping things up - I think we can get it moved over (and maybe by then I'll have some time to tweak this so we have a decent list article. Many thanks to you and Bridgeplayer. Two final thoughts:

1. Cottage cheese soup?
2. Move that bus!

147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have AfDed UCHUG. Here is the AfD in case you'd like to comment. Novaseminary (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is being sent from DelrayFLWriter in reply to your request for speedy deletion of the page for Delray Beach Political Machine. Per the requests made, more verifiable references have been added. In regard to it being a political hit page, it is relevant historical data important for case studies about politics, elections and racism. There is numerous documentation about the African American race being disenfranchised from participating in the political voting process which is problematic on a national level which starts on the local level in places like Delray Beach, FL. Not all Encyclopedic information is pleasant nor pretty. Some facts maybe harsh but true. Like wise, the Holocaust, Hitler, Jim Crow, Slavery are all unpleasant and cast negative light on elected officials yet the information is true. The Enyclopedic page of The Machine in Delray Beach is just as noteoworthy as the page about The Machine at the University of Alabama. These pages both provide relevant case study information. To add, all information posted on the page for the Delray Beach Political Machine is documented in many, many news stories. Those news stories have been added to the reference section. All information on that page is true, factual and encyclopedic. Your consideration is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DelrayFLWriter (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Postscript - article was deleted five hours after the above posting - admin agreed with my assessment of it being an attack page (the prose was hardly NPOV), speedy deletion category G10 covers it in this case. While all the information presented could be supported by reliable sources, the tone of the prose was the real reason for the deletion. Although I didn't mention it in my concerns about the article, I was also concerned that this wasn't notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia with an international scope and readership. Delray Beach (population 64,150) is not exactly Chicago (population 2.9 million) or even Hialeah (230,000). B.Wind (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Guangzhou Province‎, and the City of Guangzhou is not a provincial-level city. I can assume some might assume that it could be one, however. So I created the page by mistake, thinking that the city of Guangdong was in Guangzhou Province, and someone has forgotten to add a redirect to Guangzhou from Guangzhou Province. In fact, the city of Guangzhou is in the province of Guangdong.

So, you might think it better to delete the redirect, especially since Guangzhou is not a provincial-level city. But I don't think there's a great need to do so.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleetham (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the update. Since you created the redirect, you have the option of speedy deletion by tagging it with {{db-author}} if/when you change your mind. On the other hand, we keep redirects if they are plausible search items and/or foreseeable typos. So even though it's technically wrong, I don't plan on contesting it, either. I defer to those who know better (probably much so) than I. I restored the redirect only because it appeared foreseeable to me... but then again, I'm no such authority. B.Wind (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see why you would delete them, but I would like you to consider this request. Since many countries such as England have the same sort of aim, I think that possibly from 1000 - 1800 we should have decades or centuries (i.e. Years of the 1600s in Italy), rather than an individual article. I just created the pages to have them grow. Could you possibly redirect them.--Theologiae (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Point answered in deletion discussion. It's better to start with the pages over wider intervals (by decades or half centuries), then split things off as they become unwieldy. Suggestion: if there are {{prod}} signs on multiple articles of a series, don't just remove them: address the issues mentioned in the tags before removing them. This series has had multiple tags on them... and not just the {{prod}}s left by the IP user. B.Wind (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't get fully what your intention is. Please could you state it simply in bullet points so I can be given the correct understanding of what is to be done? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • B.Wind, Please revisit this . I did 4 or 5 for 1300 in a few minutes tonight. I can easily do the others. I think this is exactly what you asked for. Articles have to begin somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 08:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, I've also found these one-item "lists" by the same editor:

1686 in Italy - added four entries

1402 in Italy - added two more (one redlink, though)

1339 in Italy

1287 in Italy

1285 in Italy - already listed at AfD

:1241 in Italy

1177 in Italy

1179 in Italy

1176 in Italy

1167 in Italy

1156 in Italy

1137 in Italy

1132 in Italy

1123 in Italy

These clearly present a problem for Wikipedia. If they get expanded, I see no problem (I also found about a dozen "lists" with only two entries, but I noticed you didn't include any two-item lists in your nomination). All of these are in dire need of custodianship or deletion. Theologiae, instead of pumping these out as if you're trying to meet a deadline, could you kindly cultivate them so they have enough substance to keep? At least get the help of WP:WikiProject Italy and put its tag on the talk page of each of your list articles... 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

right-- it is always a problem when people make borderline minimal stubs. If you start with the regular series for the year, 1345 or whatever, and also 1345 in art, you will always find at least 2 in Italy. Actually, I think they are defensible even with one item--I think it is easier to add items, than to divide a decade article, but other people don't agree, so why look for trouble? DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess - thank you both for expanding the articles that are nominated and the above list that my IP friend has produced (I put WikiProject tags for each of these). DGG, I have no objection to any of these provided that they are not one-item lists (I'll see if I can do any of these tomorrow as I'm doing this after a 16 hour workday). I'll have to check the AfD discussion later and update accordingly. B.Wind (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

essentially all have been none at this point. I have never encountered a year of the high middle ages or later in any major country of Western Europe that could not easily be expanded to several items using information just in Wikipedia. I assume you now want to withdraw the nomination--if someone would care to do a bot, we could populate all these articles automatically. DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, DGG - thanks to you and IP. I'll wander over to the AfD and withdraw all nominations - and hope the editors who initially supported the nomination will follow suit and support the withdrawal. IP and I (mostly IP) got the WikiProject tags in place on all the articles of the series, too.B.Wind (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You recently added an {{oldrfd}} tag to Talk:Filibuster (United States Senate)‎. The redirect that was nominated was Filibuster in United States‎, which redirects to Filibuster (United States Senate)‎. Shouldn't it have been added to talk:Filibuster in United States‎? -- JPMcGrath (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right - I'll fix it. Thanks. B.Wind (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beaten to it by User:ShinyGee. Many thanks, shiny! B.Wind (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, you're quite welcome! —ShinyG 09:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just an FYI that the person who created Rancho Carrillo keeps reverting the merge/redirect you placed on the article redirecting it to Carlsbad, CA. I figured that you'd want to know. The content is identical to that in the main article, and this is getting rather old. I left a comment on the person's talk page, but if they persist, I really don't have that big an axe to grind about the article (I had just tagged it while on new page patrol), but it's getting tiresome that the editor isn't getting it. Want to watchlist it and spare me a 3RR problem? Thanks Montanabw^(talk) 02:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Will do. If the other editor violates 3RR, I'll see what I can do... B.Wind (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very slow 3RR, but I'd like the issue to be over so I can get the thing off my watchlist, sigh... ;-D Montanabw^(talk) 18:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he/she/it persists, I might just AfD it and be done with it... and I loathe the AfD process. B.Wind (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My sympathies. Drop me a line at my talk page if you do, I'll support. Montanabw^(talk) 05:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Redirect Barnstar
		For all the work put in contributing at Redirects for Discussion, looking through redirects, and helping improve the navigational aids of the project. Quiet, background work, but it has a great effect on the end-users in the long term! Thanks for your work in the area, Taelus (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - glad to do it, especially when I'm battling writer's block... which is more often than I'd expect. Now I have a matched set! B.Wind (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B.Wind. It will take me a while to actually get my head around what all that meant and what it was you actually did there. But thanks for sorting that one out. Much appreciated. (I just bumble about and learn from those like yourself who rectify the crumpled mess I have left behind, thinking it was a satisfactory attempt... lol) --Haruth (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello B.Wind, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Engill Ræður För, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A9 doesn't apply, since there is an article about the artist Bubbi Morthens. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - it's a mistake that everybody makes now and again. Thryduulf (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello B.Wind. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Bennet Alphonso (mango), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Thank you. Theleftorium 22:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't the case when I posted the tags on it and a collection of other mango "articles" three weeks ago. So much for "speedy deletion." B.Wind (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Little Red Riding Hood (Disney). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Red Riding Hood (Disney). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.--mono 03:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Commented at AfD after finding an appropriate source demonstrating the significance of the film. It took all of six seconds of searching in Google Books. B.Wind (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you objected to a prod on this article after an Afd, I would appreciate your comment on the Afd itself Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Control (music company) (2nd nomination) The first Afd was closed (WP:NPASR) under the rubric no debate may be relisted more than twice, however, the two relistings were within an hour and twenty minutes of each other, (Apparently there was a cache problem somewhere.) and the AfD was closed the same day as the two relistings. The total Afd ran a few minutes less than one week, from 21:36, 24 March 2010, to 21:19, 31 March 2010. I don't believe that this request violates the spirit of Wikipedia:Canvassing, but if it does, please let me know. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Once an article is nominated for deletion either by AfD or prod, any future attempt to delete it must either be by AfD or speedy deletion. See WP:PROD for details. B.Wind (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are one. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am honored, and I thank you. B.Wind (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted/redirected the article Kendal Nagorcka and Libby Campbell for no reason.I find this vandalism as the articles in question are Wikified and up to standards.If you try to remove these articles again, you will be reported.Matt-tastic (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I redirected them because they did not demonstrate any notability whatsoever. Add citations and actual information supporting their notability and they will be left alone if they meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Do not threaten me - see what I'm trying to do instead. Oh, you should check what Wikipedia defines as WP:Vandalism as I do not vandalize (did anybody tell you about WP:Assume good faith?). B.Wind (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how these actors/actresses are 'One Liners'.If you have seen the programme, you would know they are/were both main characters and Kendal Nagorcka has appeared in many TV programmes,Musicals and Films.I would happy for you to put in up for community discussion and you could find out how wrong you are.Thank YouMatt-tastic (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You recently redirected the article Kendal Nagorcka again.You claim that it all of the proffered citations are from promotional (not WP:RS) sites and fansites - thus this still does not meet WP:BIO)however the majority of the sites are not promotional or fansites and by the section WP:ANYBIO2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field and since Kendal Nagorcka has made a widely recongnized contribution the article stands as a biography suited to wikipedia.Matt-tastic (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not continuing this debate here. You're welcome to continue your case at WP:AfD. This serves as your AfD notice. B.Wind (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, B.Wind. Why did you deprod Another World Is Possible? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought it would be better to get the community to participate in a deletion discussion than have it deleted without discussion. As you undoubtedly know, the Wikipedia community has a wide variety of viewpoints from the strictest of interpretations of WP:DAB to the broadest. I tend to fall somewhere in the middle (and in fact, have not yet made up my mind as to whether the dab page deserved deletion - or even conversion to a list article), and this is one time in which I wanted an article/page not to be tripped up by WP:CONLIMITED. B.Wind (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  OK. I just wanted to make sure you aren't removing the prods just because it's a dab page. I had seen a couple recently. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Got a CSD notice about this one - was confused as I thought I'd already tagged it for {{db-redirtypo}}, but no biggie. Moreover, the redirect was the result of a page move to a more canonical name (particularly that name, sans quotes) - is there a way you can get that bot to check for if the redirect was the result of a move? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't operate any bots. I've had bots "follow me" and notify people whom I had also notified myself (sometimes a couple of days after the fact). To check to see if the redirect is the result of a move, click onto the redlink and you'll see the logs for the page (I have just done this for "Hilda" Madsen" and noticed that you have been "credited" with the move three days before the redirect was deleted). B.Wind (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Who Cartman's Father is. Since you had some involvement with the Who Cartman's Father is redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the note. I agree on all the points you mentioned, for what it's worth. I'm not sure whether to laugh or scratch my head at the last line in the current article. — e. ripley\^talk 18:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to point out that in this edit you made Orka redirect to Orca (notice the different spelling). I'm only pointing it out to be sure that is what you think is best. If it is, great, no need to pay any more attention to this. 0¹⁸ (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for B.Wind, but I imagine it was because Orka was ProD'ed (as you know), and rather than letting it die (as it should've) B.Wind saw it as a reasonably likely misspelling of Orca, what with the hard "C" and all, and redirected. Seems perfectly reasonable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're both right - I redirected it as a probable misspelling as the prodded article was spammy but without substance, but the dab page also had the article mentioned in the hatnote (I'm not opposed to moving Orka (comics) to Orka as the primary use, provided that a hatnote points from the article to the dab page). B.Wind (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest leaving "Orka (comics)" where it is. It already has other hatnote, and it is linked from the the Orca dab page, so I think we are okay as is. Glad you thought about this, I just wanted to make sure that happened. I know when one is cleaning it can get difficult to dot all the 'i's. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works fine with me. B.Wind (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your genial response to a beginner. I originally was just interested in putting the park (in the basement of a shopping mall near me) in Haifa, as someone seems to have thought it was near and not in the city. I would much rather they be closed on the Sabbath, but I thought I should clarify the issue, as the entry appeared to imply it stayed closed on the Sabbath (the point of the boycott). (BTW, the part about the reopening needs a citation.) (I also think "Grand Canyon" is a cute pun, but I guess it makes it too long.) So although I will probably go to the park again, I don't really feel like giving them the publicity. BTW, I may have visited the original Luna Park as a child. Thank you again, and happy editing!Mzk1 (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hosanna kabakoro 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. Rettetast (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 92 (Collier County, Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unremarkable county road in Florida. Only one reference is live, and it merely shows it exists, gives no information about CR 92 itself.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. –Fredddie™ 22:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 912 (Broward County, Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unremarkable county road in Florida. Possibly fails WP:GNG.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. –Fredddie™ 22:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 896 (Collier County, Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unremarkable county road in Florida. Possibly fails WP:GNG.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. –Fredddie™ 22:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Florida State Road 609 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unremarkable county road in Florida. Possibly fails WP:GNG

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. –Fredddie™ 20:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Surigao (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Surigao (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello B.Wind. Recently, the Amusement Parks WikiProject was reformatted and revived. As part of this process other related WikiProjects (such as Disneyland, Herschend Family Entertainment, Universal Parks & Resorts and Walt Disney World) were also revived and have now become part of the Amusement Park WikiProject as task forces. If you would like to remain listed as a member on these WikiProjects please re-add your name to the appropriate lists at the participants page. All names currently on the list have been cleared. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. Thank you for your cooperation, Themeparkgc  Talk  08:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The article County Road 711 (Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced article of a non-notable county road in Florida.

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. –Fredddie™ 03:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 726 (Martin County, Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced article of a non-notable county road in Florida.

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. –Fredddie™ 03:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 612 (Indian River County, Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable county road in Florida

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. –Fredddie™ 01:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 613 (Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable county road in Florida. Possible claim to notability is unsourced.

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. –Fredddie™ 01:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 615 (Indian River County, Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable county road in Florida. Possible claim to notability is unsourced.

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. –Fredddie™ 01:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 606 (Indian River County, Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable county road in Florida. Possible claim to notability is unsourced.

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. –Fredddie™ 03:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 603 (Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable county road in Florida. Possible claim to notability is unsourced.

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. –Fredddie™ 03:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 512 (Indian River County, Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable county road in Florida. Possible claim to notability is unsourced.

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. –Fredddie™ 03:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 709 (Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable county route in Florida. Only possible link to notability is unsourced.

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. Admrboltz (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable county road. Possible claim to notability is not sourced. Simply showing up on a map does not ensure notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Fredddie™ 21:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida) 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. Imzadi 1979 → 01:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 511 (Brevard County, Florida) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Road 511 (Brevard County, Florida) 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. Imzadi 1979 → 01:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 869 (Lee County, Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet the USRD notability guidelines or WP:GNG as a standalone article.

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. Admrboltz (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Article Incubator/County Road 509 (Brevard County, Florida) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article County Road 605 (Florida) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable county highway that does not pass the WP:GNG or USRD notability guidelines as a standalone article.

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. AdmrBoltz 00:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Luna Park steamboat Denver.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Roller Coaster - Coaster. Since you had some involvement with the Roller Coaster - Coaster redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Themeparkgc  Talk  23:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CategorySchemesTalk. Since you had some involvement with the CategorySchemesTalk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). TB (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to see how you were doing and to say that we miss you! --Rschen7754 08:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Don't be a fucking idiot. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Don't be a fucking idiot redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you hav