User talk:Paul Bedson: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 07:45, 16 April 2022

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I would like to make a statement regarding my ban and request it's reduction to an indefinite topic ban on "fringe" subjects, broadly construed. You can add Anglo-Saxon History to the indefinite topic ban as well if you like. Almost eight years ago, I visited an untested archaeological site in a place called Aaiha that was very interesting and I began writing Wikipedia about it and surrounding archaeological and historical topics. I am fully aware this has caused a number of problems for Wikipedia, especially around the time of my ban when I was living alone in Nottingham with unsuitable or no employment, without much to do but explore all types of fringe concepts around the subject using inaccurate, primary and old sources that I had not properly read in detail. Sometimes with elements of original research and causing disruption with other editors, accusations of bad faith, using material deleted from other articles, not abiding to consensus, etc. as detailed in the RfC below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Paul_Bedson#Summary I have read in detail and fully understand the points raised in this RfC. They are mostly criticisms of my edits on fringe subjects and Anglo-Saxon history, which in particular, I have no intention of writing more about. I regret and am sorry for this behaviour and accept that the methods I used in the past to promote the investigation of this site were not acceptable or productive for the Wikipedia project. I do not intend to repeat such behaviour but instead concentrate on productive efforts to expand the coverage of Lebanese Archaeology in general, which has hardly expanded since I was banned and I have a number of unique and hard to find sources that I would like to use to develop this section of Wikipedia again. Most notably, the inventories of Lebanese archaeological sites compiled by Lorraine Copeland and Peter Wescombe in the 1960s, Julien Aliquot’s inventory of Mount Hermon temples, Jacques Cauvin, Graeme Barker along with personal friendships with leading figures in the field such as Lebanon Head of Archaeology at the Directorate General of Antiquities, Assad Seif. I should even be able to provide a letter of reference from Dr. Seif if required. I would like to return to write about Lebanese, Syrian and Israeli Archaeology and Lebanese Heritage Management, which I feel is an important area Wikipedia should help support and document, I would like to demonstrate that I can edit productively to provide useful information for future generations of Heritage Management specialists. I intend to work on articles about sites, lithics, pottery and finds from the Paleolithic to the Iron Age, mainly in the Near East. I have previously sent ArbCom Dr. Seif’s latest article regarding Lebanese Heritage Management for consideration of it’s importance. Some may question whether my continued work will influence this area to my point of view, to which I would suggest we ignore, as I will the Aaiha plain as the focus of my work previously but rather I will be focusing around Tell Aswad (30km away from Aaiha), where the first emmer wheat was discovered at 8,800BC. This mainstream subject area - the first wheat and settlement development is my specialty and I would suggest is important for the Wikipedia project as it helps document where we came from as a culture; a type of knowledge is of the highest value for both Wikipedia and humanity. I am not out to prove or push any fringe concepts anymore, instead prove myself and concentrate on what I would like to edit Wikipedia about. History is somewhat intertwined with archaeology, so I would request only a topic ban on Anglo-Saxon history if one is deemed necessary. I have shown below pages in this area which I have created or edited that I feel were beneficial and the type of work I would like to continue contributing if the community ban is replaced with a fringe topic ban I would also like to add that I like to think I have matured a lot in the four and a half years since the ban and am at least now over 40. I moved back to my hometown of Coventry, UK and got married. I have a highly successful job which occupies most of my time now, am no longer Druze and converted to Islam, which is also much more mainstream. I look forward to your considerations and would be pleased to provide any further information or answer any questions required. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per community consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive289#Ban_appeal_for_Paul_Bedson Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This unblock request is just a few words short of 2000 words?!?!?! Please strongly consider cutting it down by a factor of ten. That'd still be about 10x larger than most unblock requests, but the larger request may be appropriate in this specific instance. --Yamla (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I calculated that I wrote approximately 4-500,000 live words with possibly almost the same number that only you administrators can read, while I could edit. I have trimmed this request down about as much as I can. I am appealing a community ban and there is a lot to address in the RfC, so I hope you will understand and this abridged version will be more appropriate under the circumstances. Thank you for your advice. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As this is an appeal of a community ban, I've posted to AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ban appeal for Paul Bedson. If you have any comments to make in response to posts there, you can add them here and someone can copy them over. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the time and effort you have put into this case Opabinia. I really appreciate it. I hope you don't mind if I ping @Doug Weller: as per our e-mail discussion to draw his attention to this. I expect he would appreciate the heads up. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would add in light of recent comments on the noticeboard that I agree in part with DGG that the topic ban could be extended to cover all of Medieval history and genealogy. Even European history but Ancient history is part of what I would like to cover in similar fashion to Huldra on Lebanese village pages. I have no intention of working in such areas again or bothering editors working in them. I would also like to apologize to Ealdgyth and Mike Christie personally for the work I caused them so many years ago and hope my attitude and tone of collaboration on issues such as negotiation of topic bans will demonstrate that I have learned how this place works better. I also will not be disturbing any other "Lebanese Archaeology editors" as there are none. I tried getting into Cambridge and UCL to further studies in this area and they want nothing to do with the subject. Doug is the closest you'll have and my thanks to Huldra for improving the Lebanese villages with modern information. This would also be my intention to improve such areas with similar information from similar reliable sources. The Lorraine Copeland inventory I mentioned is old but I will treat it that way, it is reliable and the latest information that I doubt you will find it in any library anywhere near you. I recognize this was a fault of mine as I rushed through covering the most important areas for my specific "thesis". My intention now is to broaden that coverage with wider exploration of paleolithic, general neolithic and bronze age sites as well as the Heavy Neolithic I specifically focused on too much. I feel I can do a good job in this area and impress @Doug Weller: (who I like, respect and certainly also owe numerous apologies) that my focus is no longer single mindedly on my own interests but that of Wikipedia primarily. I am happy for him to reimpose a community ban at will if this one were to be repealed and I put one foot out of line. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posted here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again and in response to Huldra's question why we should find every ancient site notable is because they are and every one can help people understand their origins, whether from that area or not. We have English Heritage in the UK to document all our sites. Lebanese and Syrians don't, even if Israel is pretty well covered. Protecting and recording Lebanese and Syrian heritage is still important and I hope you will agree if you think it over, considering the recent efforts of certain groups to destroy it. The Association for the Protection of Lebanese Heritage has a crowdmap they tried running and I tried copying a fraction of the information I wrote here over but it took too long and hasn't the potential. There are many Lebanese and Syrians who have thanked me for my work and I am sure would thank Huldra for yours too. I run a Facebook group called Save Beqaa Heritage with almost 200 members now who are interested in the topic [1] and no doubt would appreciate the coverage. I do agree with your criticisms about focus however and would want to introduce well sourced, modern material where I can and make comprehensive new articles, not just archaeology stubs an area I hope to go traveling and collecting relevant sources. Even today I have seen more papers coming out arguing more for Mediterranean over African origins [2], [3] (should be covered with a rational synopsis such as [4] rather than that provided by [5])...and little by little, some of my views become a bit less fringe. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respond to Boing said Zebedee, Iridescent and Huldra's latest comments. I do not intend to push fringe views in any area. The example I noted was to show I wouldn't use a source like the Daily Telegraph that overtly pushes fringe theories for such coverage. I agree entirely your New Scientist article should take the lead if covered and with all the views and some of the skepticism it contains. It's still a notable find as it has significant coverage. That isn't what I should focus on if the ban is appealed. I am tending to agree with Huldra that my efforts if allowed to edit again should be to tidy up some of the articles I wrote with a biased focus on the "Heavy Neolithic" information - to broaden that and turn the articles into decent pieces. I would be pleased to accept an unban limited only to doing that as a trial. I would add that i don't advocate an "out-of-lebanon" thesis anymore. The "Save Beqaa Heritage" group does not advocate this and I did not intend to use original research in any way if allowed to edit again. My group is an offshoot of the much larger "Save Beirut Heritage" group, which has over 14,000 members (to show the size of interested parties) [6], and covers news, archaeology and heritage management content. I am not arguing and will not be pushing ANY fringe views like "out-of-lebanon" or such nonsense. What I do know after reading the inventory of Lebanese prehistoric sites and reading and writing about dozens of other ones in the area is that there was a concentration of Neolithic activity up and down the Jordan valley at the start of farming. This "Levantine Corridor" hypothesis as my friend Edmund likes to call it is slightly more advanced than the "Fertile Crescent" hypothesis that is still prevalent and unrefined in the mainstream and is somewhat orignal research expansion from it. I don't intend to "push" that, just document what is there. It is factual coverage and not views that I want to push. If you know the stratigraphic seqences of enough of these sites, you'll see the concentration down the Jordan and Beqaa valleys. This isn't really fringe since Kathleen Kenyon's discoveries at Jericho in the 50s. Expanding articles about villages that might help future explorers find more Jerichos, I hope will be interpreted as a good and true intention. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One last response to Doug. I am really sorry that I can't make you feel comfortable even being limited to editing such a narrow area as Lebanese villages previously worked on badly, for improvement purposes. Please let me know if there is anything I can do or say to make you feel more so. I wanted to add that yes, Edmund is a friend as is Barbara Joy O'Brien, who is still going strong at 95 years of age now! I don't agree with all of Christian O'Brien or Edmund Marriage's views either. Edmund constantly refers to a "restart" of agriculture which is blatantly contrary to my constant referring to the Aswad emmer grains as the first hard evidence of the start of domesticated agriculture. This can be hard work, we constantly argue over this and other issues and unfortunately, his do not seem to change. Mine do and I hope I have demonstrated they do and have done. I am very open minded and bow to new and better wisdom and learn from it as I have learned from you Doug and very grateful for your hard work. Despite our differences in opinion, me and Edmund are still friends and I do agree with some of his views as does Wikipedia in the last two sentences of the very short and (embarrassingly) weak article on the Levantine Corridor. It would be the views that both you and me agree on that would like to come back and improve coverage on pages like that potentially and Lebanese villages. We agree it would be nice to find more Gobekli Tepes or Jerichos. We also agree that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia could be for documenting where to find them better, this is within scope. Wikipedia is for providing information and if there is a way I can do that in any limited form around this area with good sources (such as Peltenberg & Wasse : Neolithic Revolution: New perspectives on SouthWest Asia in Light of Recent Discoveries on Cyprus, Oxbow, 2004, from my library), aiming to impress you, at risk of immediate re-banning, I would be keen to accept your advice and judgement. Even if given the Levantine Corridor article to improve and make an example of what I could do to help and try to be your friend & colleague again, I would be extremely grateful for the chance. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 09:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Hello, Another 6 months has passed and I am due another appeal to my community ban. I have had an idea that might be acceptable to arbcom and the Wikipedia community that could partially un-ban me and allow me to contribute my knowledge and artistic talents in a meaningful and non-harmful way. Why not try “sandboxing” me? I thought to appeal my ban to the extent that I can only edit my sandbox and no live pages. I would only to be able to write or create images and maps in my sandbox for other Wikipedians and future generations to use as they see fit. This might solve my problem of knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet. The first thing I would like to get on with, given permission is a map of the Levantine Corridor to improve your page on that. Pending enough other suitable contributions and nothing disagreeable comes from this, I thought it might make a suitable way or rehabilitation? I look forward to hearing what you think? Thank you. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on the consensus from the community discussion ([7]), this unblock request is declined. Alex Shih (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am willing to copy this appeal to AN if that is what you want - but I don't think that limiting you to the sandbox is really do-able from a technical, or manpower standpoint. If you would like me to copy your appeal to AN - let me know. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SQL, and thank you for your time and manpower to reply to my request. I would be very grateful if you could copy my appeal to AN. Limiting to my sandbox would have to be done on a "trust-or-ban" basis, whereby I am instantaneously bannable by any admin if I edit any other page than my sandbox. I'm happy to have that noted on my userpage, so hopefully it could be arranged with minimal technical or manpower requirements. Kind Regards. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay - your request is live at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unblock_Request:_Paul_Bedson SQL ^{Query me!} 06:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SQL. I would like to add that I fully understand OR and do not intend to put anything like that in my sandbox. I am not promoting Edmund Marriage or Christian O'Brien's theories. The "British Wildlife Management", "Ancient Origins" and "Golden Age Project" websites being used against me are nothing to do with me. My apologies for having friends with wild theories but don't we all have some of those? Is having friends illegal? Christian O'Brien never discussed the Heavy Neolithic or the Qaraoun culture. These are archaeological areas not covered before my editing and not ones that can be deleted. I am intending to promote and expand on those with little known sources lost to archaeology today, by reputable author's such as Lorraine Copeland. The map I intended for the Levantine Corridor would simillarly be sourced from numerous scholarly peer-reviewed, academic publications and sources and I am fully aware of what they are. I am grateful to know that I am able to upload images still (thank you DrKay) and have done with some below of the temple at Beit Mery. These came from my Facebook Group "Save Beqaa Heritage"[8], which similarly doesn't promote fringe views, just heritage management issues and cultural heritage news. I have members visiting these temples and ruins and recording some great stuff that I hope can be used sensibly on here and the images provide some evidence of that intention. This is just the sort of thing I'd like to be unbanned for :-

If someone would be so kind to add them to the Beit Mery page during my temporary absence, I would be exceedingly grateful. @Doug Weller: ?Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that stuff like this may not be here in 50 years time. The cultural heritage in this area is being erased by various powers and wars since I have been banned. Images like these and the words I would like to write about them are the jewels of humanity's history and our culture that may not be here tomorrow. It's what Wikipedia was set up to promote and record. Even if this appeal doesn't work, I will keep trying to get unbanned to contribute to the project and our collective cultural records. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that when I said "knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet", I did not mean that I was going to write OR. What I meant is that Lebanese Archaeology (and Syrian to a large extent) is written in French, by giants in the field such as Jacques Cauvin and Henri de Contenson and a lot of what they wrote hasn't been absorbed into English (and to some extent Israeli) archaeology. Archaeology works that way, each country has their own university programs doing their own thing and each getting ahead in different areas. Syria and Lebanon are Francophone. They're peer-reviewed and academic, just not in our language, which is something else I hope to bring across, as I did making the pages on those archaeologists and their work. I speak good French and my wife is fluent to help my understanding so development of these areas is my intended purpose, not promoting Original Research or anything like that. I meant there's a lot of peer-reviewed, academic sources that I know about, can access that Wikipedia hasn't caught up with and doesn't document very well, or for some reason doesn't want record of. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder - your talkpage is for discussing your block - not for trying to circumvent it by asking other editors to proxy edit for you. SQL ^{Query me!} 22:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am not trying to circumvent the ban. Just showing an example of my good intentions to a concerned ArbCom Board Member. You remember "good faith" and all that. I'm just trying to demonstrate it. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉

Fair enough, "If someone would be so kind to add them" did not read to me as being directed at a particular person. I see that in a later edit you added a ping (which didn't go thru, pings have to be in a new comment to work, not edited into an old one - I will re-ping for you @Doug Weller:). SQL ^{Query me!} 22:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again and hope you and yours have a very happy Easter. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see they have been nominated for deletion. No one should be adding such images until that's decided. I note that you are already publicising your old user page publicly, which is using Wikipedia for promotion of your views. You shouldn't be doing that either. Doug Weller talk 08:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to that. Thank you for notifying me and for replying here. For you Doug, I won't publicise my old user page again at your request. I have picked out the non-fringe parts I would like to promote and work on further here. [9] and will use that in future. In fact I won't as a gesture of good faith. But if you'd be so kind to change your opinion about my banishment (and help convince Christie, Ealdgith et al.), I'll be sure to create a new userpage that doesn't promote any of Christian O'Brien or Edmund Marriage's views, which I fully understand why you're sensitivities about. Those views are not mine and I do not intend to promote them. I am only intending to promote the factual details of the temples and archaeological ruins of the Levantine corridor, Syria, SE Turkey, Lebanon and Israel. Name one view that me and you disagree on Doug? There probably aren't any. I'm as skeptic as you nowadays, possibly more so! If you will just give me a chance Doug, I will do my very best never to put a foot wrong again and simply expand the archaeology section with academic, peer-reviewed sources and nice photos, drawings of flint tools, credibly sourced maps you will approve of. Have a think about it and let me know in another 6 months if this appeal doesn't get past. Thank you and hope you and yours have a good Easter too. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to stay out of it this time around, and I still have no intention of discussing it - this is a hit and run, but I will point out two things. First, as a banned user you above made a request that another editor make an edit for you. An analogous scenario involving another User is currently under discussion, along with the broader practice and policy, so you might want to see where that discussion goes before making any such further requests: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Use of user talk page while blocked;Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Proxying for blocked users? Second, due to your ban, you only have limited opportunity to interact with the community, and, to be blunt, you can't seem to avoid putting your foot in your mouth. In this current request for reinstatement you had that phrase about "knowing too much about a certain area of archaeology that academia hasn’t caught up with yet," which to any long-term editor raises all kinds of warning bells about WP:NOR, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. You tried to explain here that you didn't mean it that way, but the damage was already done. Any small chance you may have had to be reinstated evaporated the minute you typed that sentence. Likewise, the "I am due another appeal to my community ban" was sure to ruffle feathers, expressing it like an entitlement. You also followed that up with a Thank You message that included "I have members visiting these temples and ruins and recording some great stuff that I hope can be used sensibly on here and the images provide some evidence of that intention." Again, that screams of WP:OR - editing a page based on first-hand observations of a site is completely out of bounds. Again you may not have meant it that way but that is how it would be received. Either you still don't really understand the relevant policies, or you are doing an abysmal job of expressing yourself. If there is any road forward for you (and in all honesty I am skeptical whether you haven't burned too many bridges among people with long memories) you are going to have to figure out how to make a request for reinstatement that doesn't just reinforce people's already deeply-entrenched opinions, while making it absolutely clear to the community that you fully understand the policies that you have run afoul of (which, of course, requires that you fully understand those policies), while convincing them that your participation will benefit the community in a way that will overcome the risk of a repetition of what got us to this point, as well as being worth the time commitment to other editors of any oversight that would almost certainly be required. Again, it may be a lost cause, but a repeat of what you did this time is certainly not going to get you anywhere. Agricolae (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agricolae, thanks for your comments. Duly noted. I'll make another attempt with language that doesn't raise alarm bells so much next time. I do understand WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. I understand that editing a page based on first-hand observations of a site is a no-no but taking photos of one and putting them on Wikipedia isn't, last I checked. I didn't mean to do any more than that. If you want those images and records to be lost in time then keep on voting for me to be banned, but if you want a little glimpse of where your ancestry as well as mine came from and the records like these of our first villages, temples, religion, way of life and culture, why not put one or two on the page to enlighten the world a little (the purpose of Wikipedia) and save Doug the trouble? Thanks and have a happy Easter too (what's left of it). Be it Merry! ;-) Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 02:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pseudo-Mark

The article Pseudo-Mark has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to be referring to Mark 16#Longer ending of Mark. I don't have access to the sources, but this is not a standard term, and appears to be used differently by different authors. The existence of a page here is more likely to confuse further.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Daask (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pseudo-Mark for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Daask (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can try and hide the author of the last twelve verses of Mark 16 somewhere that he won't be found, but the truth will out eventually [10] Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Henri de Contenson

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

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Natureium (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Robin Heath for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —Paleo Neonate – 08:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of Mary Magdalene listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Legend of Mary Magdalene. Since you had some involvement with the Legend of Mary Magdalene redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Druze terms

A tag has been placed on Category:Druze terms requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Christianobrien.jpg

The file File:Christianobrien.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Superseded by c:File:Christian OBrien Full Scan.jpg.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]