User talk:David Gerard/archive 8

Rollback feature

If an admin doesn't choose which edits to rollback, will a message say "There seems to be a problem with your login session."? - LuigiGamer64 (talk) 04:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

76.220.45.223

[edit]

Look, David, let me teach you a lesson, never block someone's IP when they didn't contribute to Wikipedia yet! Now stop it, and think! Think about what you did! - LuigiGamer64 (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you block my IP address? I never even contribute on Wikipedia with it yet! I never did! Unblock it! - LuigiGamer64 (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He blocked 65,000+ IPs (and who knows how many people this corresponds to) from anonymous editing or account creation for a year. Yes, my IP was included in this as well. On the blocked IP page he didn't give a reason. David, in the future please use less of a shotgun approach. This block at least includes AT&T's residential fiber service.

- Jynx-Me (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those blocks are handled by the Arbitration Committee and the functionaries list, who I've let know about the collateral damage. My apologies, they've got it now - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I never edited this wiki with my IP address a long time ago! My IP's block expires on November. That's a long time! it's his FAULT For blocking it! He should unblock it! The reason for my IP's block is just a template--LuigiGamer64 (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's collateral damage. I strongly suggest you email the functionaries list with details of the IP and ask for it to be removed or at least for IP block exemption for your username - I really can't remove it without the arbcom's say-so, and they can remove it just as well in any case. Once again, my apologies - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through search results for "functionaries list" and the arbitration committee and am more confused than when I started. So two questions: 1) Can you explain (or link to something explaining) the process for appealing this? 2) Is this actually going to expire in Nov or will something autorenew it? This isn't the first time I've had this IP blocked and for minor corrections I'm not always that diligent about signing in. BTW AT&T uVerse (residential FTTN) IPs are effectively static, so the "restart your router" fix doesn't work; I'm not sure if this whole class B is owned by them but if it is then more selective blocks will definitely be more effective for whomever you were originally trying to block. Nate (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To precis my response above: Contact them, not me, it's not my business any more, sorry - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome not to answer and I'm not going to push this farther, but just to confirm, if the "them" you're talking about this list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/functionaries-en (as found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#arbcom-audit-en) Nate (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the ones :-) Sorry, I'm not meaning to be obtuse, but they're the ones dealing with the very good reasons for the wide-ranging and annoying range blocks in question, and I used to be but am not any more. And my further apologies for the PITA - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thanks! Nate (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Input on the Emilio Estevez Page

[edit]

Hello. I was wondering if you could chime in on the recent edits by an unregistered user. I have no problems with he or she adding new information, but no sources were added to support the minor edits. I discussed why I reverted the edits here Talk:Emilio Estevez. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. Hope you have a HAPPY NEW YEAR.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

[edit]

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 15:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

Hello David Gerard! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 7 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 698 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Lloyd Swanton - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Chris Abrahams - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Tony Buck - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Mona Simpson (novelist) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Keith Packard - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Richard Harwood - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Bob Scheifler - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's an excellent idea for a bot. I approve and shall get onto it - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kymberly Herrin image

[edit]

I have a link to an image of Kymberly Herrin that you should use for her page instead of nothing. The link is (http://gfx.filmweb.pl/p/63/68/386368/175305.1.jpg). Please consider using this image of this beautiful women. ThomasMetal75 (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)ThomasMetal75[reply]

Good pic! Who took it, what's the copyright, what licence can it be used under, etc? Unfortunately we need to know all this ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David, I'm not entirely sure 100%, but I believe that this was a pic from her Playplay issue in 1981. You can also look up other non-nudes if you'd like to use on her page for the image if you'd like. ThanksThomasMetal75 (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)ThomasMetal75[reply]

Slimelight

[edit]

The article Slimelight is at AfD, as this is your scene I thought you might be able to rescue the article. Fences&Windows 02:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of DECwindows

[edit]

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

[edit]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:UFOs

[edit]

Sounds good to me - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:VNC

[edit]

Go for it - David Gerard (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of indefinite rangeblocks. –xeno^talk 17:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell I've been away for a week :-) - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ian Olsen

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Ian Olsen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 07:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

[edit]

David,

Please would you consider removing your comment speculating about the behaviour of Nobs01 from Talk:Conservapedia? Given the history, I think the whole talk page section is more trouble than it's worth, and it can't possibly help to improve the article! Really, I think the best course of action here is to aggressively strip out all comments about the behaviour of other editors and point people towards WP:DR if they feel that another editor is likely to cause problems. Papa November (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view here, but I do think admin canvassing is relevant information to discussion of the article. Basically, the problem with your present approach is that you can't resolve a dispute by systematically removing all evidence of the dispute - David Gerard (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the slightest thing can push this particular talk page into a cycle of pointless bickering between the editors. After watching it go nowhere for three weeks, I decided it needs very strict mediation if any productive outcome is to be reached. I don't object to the discussion about Nobs01; I just think it would be better placed elsewhere. Normally, suspected admin canvassing is reported at WP:AN/I... would you object if I moved the thread there, and left a link to it from Talk:Conservapedia?

Could do, though I think it would just lead to more drama. He did after all post his concerns to the thread. It's quiescent now, I think it's best left alone. His concerns were entirely sincere, even if assessed by other editors as not relevant to the article.

By the way, thanks for your good work trying to keep the discussion there civil and productive. After having done a few such things on contentious topics before, I tend to keep well away from such ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Vega birthdate

[edit]

As you may know Alan Vega's birthdate is currently listed as 1948. There appears to conflicting evidence - the official book - versus the currently sourced Blast First Press Release. I'm trying to build consensus for a change. Please add comments on Talk :Alan Vega. Thanks. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

[edit]

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 14:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles

[edit]

I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Monast

[edit]

This article needs to be nominated at T:TDYK. If you want to do it yourself that is fine. Otherwise I will nominate it. __meco (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be great, please do! - David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the nomination here: Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on August 2. __meco (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David, that was the funniest comment on DYK that I've ever read! - Tim1965 (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Serge Monast

[edit]

On 15 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Serge Monast, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse •

Talk • 12:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-D :-D :-D - David Gerard (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV template on the Mind Uploading article

[edit]

Hi. Please be specific in your criticism of the Mind uploading article. Exactly what formulations or sources are transhumanist belief rather than philosophy and science? The article lead includes criticism of the concept. What kind of criticism is missing? If that is not clarified, I think the NPOV template has to be be removed. Mange01 (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of longest novels

[edit]

I have nominated List of longest novels, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest novels. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Padillah (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hannibalpic4.PNG

[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Hannibalpic4.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it! Kill it with a stick! - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Church of the Creator

[edit]

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

Not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found.

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. SummerPhD (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notice: appeal of deletion

[edit]

Deletion review for 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kevin Baas^talk 16:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Patterson's Curse (band) for deletion

[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Patterson's Curse (band), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patterson's Curse (band) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Student7 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this?

[edit]

[1] Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that will convince many people - David Gerard (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It convinced me, but I won't say what it convinced me about as I don't want to be rude. :-) Dougweller (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture placeholder template

[edit]

File:Replace_this_image_male.svg

You seem to have had more experience with use of this template for images. Can you please weigh in at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Request_for_picture_template ? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note added based on my experiences. The main hazard of adding the template: people email you with their photos, often under non-free licences, so you have to get good at explaining free content without appearing to rudely reject a gift :-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Game redirect

[edit]

Could you clarify what "this is an external link that points precisely here" means in your restore here? I can't find evidence that there was anything except a redirect at this location, and the exact spelling (with the parenthetical DAB phrase, but without the closing paren) doesn't seem a likely search term. DMacks (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typo on a link on an external site, not an "external link" inside an article. Typically on forum sites with defective URL detectors, e.g. those running the Reddit software or forks thereof. An even slightly useful redirect costs approximately nothing to keep forever - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah, didn't know there were known external links pointing to it, or specific known crappy external parsers with that symptom. Thanks for the info! DMacks (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is why worrying about (not otherwise problematic) redirects is really not worth worrying about IME, they'll have been good for someone, somewhere ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I came across this particular one during a strict check for redirects to this one's particular target, based on a recent vandalism pattern--otherwise I wouldn't have noticed, and probably wouldn't have cared even if I had. DMacks (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally these types of redirects would just be automatic. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps you were looking for ..." would be a nice function for the search to offer. Though the server would probably melt. But if it wouldn't ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of maintenance notices

[edit]

your name coming up

I remember your commenting on this in 2005. What's your view today? Uncle G (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one. I think they're useful when they're useful as a warning to the reader. "The article below is not quite up to our standards; it's better than nothing, please take it with a grain of salt." In practical terms they should be viewed as temporary, to tell editors to work on bringing the article up to a state where they're not needed. I am not certain off the top of my head what I think of the issue in detail - David Gerard (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome to chime in at the Pump with any thoughts that you might have. Uncle G (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden blocked

[edit]

User:Colonel Warden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is word-for-word identical to a plea made to Doc Glasgow, so sue me I'm a ~~spammer~~ lazy typist. --TS 21:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this and particularly this, if you haven't already looked and commented. Would you consider unblocking this fellow on some reasonable conditions so that we can bring this madness to a reasonable conclusion?

As far as I can tell he's been found guilty of disagreeing with other editors at AfD, moving articles while they're at AfD, putting tags somewhere other than where somebody else would have them placed, and all manner of other crimes against somebody's ego. I haven't looked at any actual evidence of disruptive conduct because nobody has presented any. Please take a look if you have time for it. --TS 21:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user I believe may be a sock of a user that you banned

[edit]

I believe Sharonmil may be a sock of Standardfact (which you blocked), Seldonquin, etc. Have a look and see what you think. Nymf _hideliho! 23:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, the only people allowed to edit Wikipedia are proven socks of a user banned by David Gerard. Didn't you get the memo? --TS 23:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE ALL FIGMENTS OF MY IMAGINATION - David Gerard (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Leibniz, who is a figment of your imagination, we are all figments of God's imagination. It follows that you are a figment of a figment of your own imagination and therefore do not exist. I don't know why I'm typing this, really. I suppose I'm just doodling. --TS 00:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait. Leibniz may not have existed. Shit. --TS 00:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't Descartes who didn't say "I don't think so" and then didn't vanish.

A user I think

May be a sockpuppet of

A user you banned.

Doesn't sound like Descartes to me - it'd have a season if it was - David Gerard (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nymf - if you do think it's said highly banned user, please contact the functionaries list about it straight away - they deal with the puppeteer in question - David Gerard (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, David. Any chance you can direct me to where I might do that, unless you meant SSP? I can't seem to find any cases dealing with this user. Nymf _hideliho! 01:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Nymf. Functionaries folks were contacted and it's being dealt with. Thanks again - Alison ^❤ 02:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we're allowed to write any old blather on your talk page and you won't bannerate us to hellandblack? This is how I prefer to remember you. --TS 01:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only actual important thing I do these days is help bring up a small child. That's really interesting. Everything else I'm treating as amusements - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suburbia/Assange

[edit]

Hi David, long time no speak. Can you please fix the wording on Julian Assange's wikipedia page to correctly reflect that he was involved with one of Australia's first ISPs, Suburbia, but not that he started it? I don't have the privilege to do so, and it appears that the person who was maintaining the page in the main has gone on a wiki break. See my talk entry on Julian's page about Suburbia for further clarification. cheers, Mark. Mdorset (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. The wording is tricky. I actually told the Forbes guy you were there too (and still run it), but he didn't use that, sticking to the now-citable claim concerning Julian having titanium balls ... Do you have anything in your press clippings collection, even someone quoting you, as long as it's a third party? - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coherent Extrapolated Volition

[edit]

Is Coherent Extrapolated Volition notable enough for a Wikipedia article at all? I'm all in favour of it, but has anyone else written about it? Could it be merged with the article on SIAI, or on Yudkowsky? ciphergoth (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts, having asked on LW and got two internal papers in six years and "We don't talk about Fight Club" back ... Friendly artificial intelligence might be the place for it - David Gerard (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. Goodnight, Gracie! - David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Church of the Creator for deletion

[edit]

The article Church of the Creator 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/Church of the Creator 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. SummerPhD (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Serge Monast

[edit]

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

Conspiracy theorist followed by pretty much nobody, everything actually "published" was self-published with less than a few hundred printings and no ISBN numbers. "Sources" have nothing to do with any of the content sans general discussion of psychotronic weaponry.

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. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Serge Monast for deletion

[edit]

The article Serge Monast 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/Serge Monast 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. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]