User talk:Docmoates/Archive 2

Hi Michael-Moates! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over six months.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in six months.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
3. Paste {{Frs user|Michael-Moates|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name subscribed to the FRS, you may be receiving this message on your new username's talk page still. If so, make sure your new account name is subscribed to the FRS, using the same procedure mentioned above.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, MM, that user page is way over the top. It looks like your entire CV. Valereee (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

To bad its my page, not yours. Michael-Moates (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read what user pages are not supposed to include, which is at Wikipedia:User pages, and especially the section at WP:USERBIO. Valereee (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a guideline... not a policy. Thanks anyways. Goodbye, now. Michael-Moates (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gaza genocide on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:USS Liberty incident on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 17:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Explicitly, this doesn't imply any issues with your edits; this was just prompted due to your participation in the RFC here. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 22:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you used a template for these Articles for Deletion nominations:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pam Blackwell
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Taylor University
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Southern University

I found this template to be confusing and I noticed other editors also found it puzzling. I originally thought it was WP:AITALK. I suggest you might get more engagement on your nominations by modifying the template, for example:

List formatting and headers may be easier than paragraphs

• topic 1: reason sentence
• topic 2: reasons sentence

Deletion nominations tend to be shorter, as you can see from other nominations in Academics and Schools.

I think using more succinct deletion nomination proposals will mean you get more community participation.

cc Other users who commented on the template: @PARAKANYAA @Here2rewrite @Geschichte —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I have already addressed this multiple times and will not be discussing it any further. Docmoates (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Docmoates. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Fielding Graduate University, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Jahaza (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I have disclosed my affiliation on my user page. Keep in mind though, the statement your posted above does not explicitly state my involvement. I am not an employee nor representative of the organization. I simply went to school there. Docmoates (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I would not have said anything if you were only an alumnus, however, your CV indicates that you are currently a post-doctoral fellow there. Jahaza (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Being a fellow is not employment per the policy because I am not paid in any way by the institution. Additionally, the edits I made were to update leadership which I providing sourcing for. Respectfully, you are grasping at straws here. Docmoates (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you've returned to the encyclopedia.

Recently, several users shared feedback on this talk page. In my view, the other users are being somewhat overzealous, but you should try to head there warnings.

Specifically:

1. Your user page is has some resemblance to a resume, although it I feel the resume-like content is within the scope permitted by WP:UPYES.
2. Some of your AdD nominations have differed from established style / phrasing conventions. Like legal filings, AfD noms are most persuasive when they follow established style norms. The formatting issues are not sufficient to prematurely end the AfD discussion, but a better formatted nomination would likely reach consensus faster.
3. Some editors would say you have a COI with FGU. In my view your disclosures are sufficient for the types of edits you have made. Nevertheless, adding clear disclosures now would likely be much easier than a long discussion at WP:COIN

Since you accepted WP:STANDARDOFFER, you have made numerous positive contributions to Wikipedia. However, your previous blocks mean that WP:AGF will be less of a defense to any proposed re-block.

I would suggest engaging with anyone who shares a concern on this page. Even if you disagree with their concerns, it might be better to simply (1) say thanks for the feedback and (2) promise to think about their message.

If other editors believe you value feedback, there is little chance of anything recent becoming an WP:ANI thread. However, your reply is terse and assertive, other editors may feel the need to to escalate to a WP:DRAMABOARD, and if you ended up there, you risk facing much stricter scrutiny given things that happened a decade ago. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 06:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood and acknowledged. Docmoates (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@BillHPike - I made edits to my user page to remove most CV content only leaving personal info in the infobox and focusing the text on my Wikipedia thoughts. Would love input. Docmoates (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no concerns. Thanks! — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I recommend against using Parenthetical referencing when mentioning pages from Wikipedia itself. For example, saying "No independent secondary sourcing The article relies entirely on primary sources, institutional catalogs, the university’s own website, and routine government compliance documents. These sources do not establish notability under core policy (Wikipedia, 2024a)" is less helpful than saying "No independent secondary sourcing The article relies entirely on primary sources, institutional catalogs, the university’s own website, and routine government compliance documents. These sources do not establish notability under core policy. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources." This way, readers don't have to look below to find which page you mean by "Wikipedia, 2024a". -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Understood. Docmoates (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

As an FYI, I would expect that you could ask a version of that question that refers to previous AfDs rather than one that is still open to see if you could get an answer that satisfies your concern. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

That is very helpful! Thank you so much! Now that makes sense! Docmoates (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Docmoates. I reverted your closure of this AFD.

One reason is that it was just recently relisted, and another was that it wasn't closed properly. I think it would be best to not have a relatively new account close this, since its within 3 separate CTOPs. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The article is within WP:CT/BLP, WP:CT/AP, and WP:CT/GENSEX. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@45dogs Apologies, just seeing this. Was trying to fix my mistake. It should be good now. I believe it is closed properly. I don't believe the close is likely to be controversial and there was a consensus. I am sorry for my template mistake. Docmoates (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Its fine. Please sign the closure with {{subst:NAC}}. I will just warn you that I wouldn't be surprised if it is challenged. But it could go without issue. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 16:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this was a good choice for a first close. Per WP:NACD: Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. – bradv 17:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, you already proposed a move on the talk page. That makes you WP:INVOLVED with respect to any administrative actions. I'm reverting your close. – bradv 17:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bradv - Let's only make statements that are accurate. I was not involved in the Afd. The move request was a separate action. I did not suggest or vote move or redirect in the Afd. With there being nearly 20 keep and 12 delete, I am not sure how it meets WP:NACD as it seems like a consensus not controversial but to each their own, I won't argue. I just ask that in the future you either be directly honest or expand your edit summary to include the full action. Docmoates (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

You're WP:INVOLVED with respect to the article. Please read the links I've posted here. – bradv 17:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Bradv I did read it and it says "should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved" and I was not involved in the Afd dispute per the policy. It does not say involved in any actions on the page only the particular dispute which was the Afd not the move. Docmoates (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest everyone continue to WP:Assume good faith and let this discussion wind down. Docmoates wasn't aware of how broadly WP:INVOLVED can be perceived to apply to contentious topics. His closure is reasonable and was made in good faith, but the community prefers admin closures in these circumstances. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Docmoates. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to read the new tutorial for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Belgian ship A4, you may be blocked from editing. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me? Let's not threaten people. A couple of notes. When editing, I follow all Wikipedia policies. I made edits to improve an article. Just because you don't like it does not make it vandalism. There is no need to come to my talk page in such an aggressive tone. Second, the article you cite is an essay not a policy or guideline that has been vetted by the community which requires a consensus. Also I am not sure why you're are commenting under this header as it is totally irrelevant to what you are saying. If you have concerns addressing them without threats will get you a lot farther. Docmoates (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC) Docmoates (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Vandalism which states "any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Docmoates (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC) Docmoates (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:56, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery Thank you! Docmoates (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Sarah Hollenstein Career and Technology Center requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, as it exhibits signs of having been generated by an AI model with no clear human review. Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia and output must be carefully checked. For further information, see the section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, 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. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find it difficult, please ask for help at the Teahouse. JTtheOG (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Seeing all the work done since the tag, I've declined the speedy. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Eagle Mountain High School requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, as it exhibits signs of having been generated by an AI model with no clear human review. Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia and output must be carefully checked. For further information, see the section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, 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. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find it difficult, please ask for help at the Teahouse. r f q i i ^talk! 05:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Docmoates! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Hotwiki (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Blanking huge chunks from Belgian ship A4 with a single edit (and nebulous edit summary: Copyedit per Wikipedia policies) leaves page regulars like Brigade Piron with no place to go EXCEPT reverting you. If I came across this sort of edit on my watchlist, I'd likely revert and come to your talk page, exactly as Brigade Piron did. BusterD (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD First of all, I did not choose to archive anything, it is automatic so lets not make assumptions. I have no problem with reverting but calling a good faith edit vandalism is different than simply reverting. Docmoates (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Quite right; it was your auto-archiving which chose to remove an active discussion from your talk. Either way, you've made choices which archived a serious disagreement about your blanking while it was ongoing. That's our problem regardless. BusterD (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The consequences of setting auto archiving to one hour are the opinions users may reasonably make about whether you even wish to have talk page conversations. You are welcome do what you want, and users are welcome to draw their own conclusions. To my experienced and trusted eye, it looks like avoidance. BusterD (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I see where you say one hour, @BusterD but the irony is, it only does it after a certain number of days. In any event, I just want to be clear, I did not blank any pages, I did edit some which removed some content but nothing was blanked as you put it. Also, in accordance with Wikipedia:Vandalism nothing was vandalism despite the vandalism tag being placed. Seems important to assume good faith and not make assumptions that edits are vandalism when they are in fact not. Nor do I think threatening a block for a good faith edit is the right path. Docmoates (talk) Docmoates (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the auto-archive to a two-day period. Your own rash actions necessitated this thread. The blanking is linked in my initial comment; the edit summary is quoted above. Brigade Piron applied a standard level 3 warning after your blanking. This would be much easier if your archiving hadn't split the thread. Neither Brigade Piron nor I threatened you, but both have warned you. I will go away now. BusterD (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

You are being very aggressive. It was not rash. It took a decent amount of time to make edits. I ask that you please stop with the personal attacks as the language feels very abusive. If you go back and look at my comment on Wikipedia:Treehouse there is at least one other person who agrees his characterization that I "vandalized" was wrong. They also agreed his comments were "hostile" as I believe you are being. It is uncalled for. Let's try to act like adults and give feedback without attacks, hostile or threatening comments, accusations. After all, we are here to contribute and collaborate and all should be acting in Wikipedia:Good faith. Docmoates (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment:

Why don't we all follow WP:AGF then everyone will understand each other and disputes will be resolved Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 21:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for your wisdom, I am going to observe what you said. Docmoates (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:DR is uesfull as well Theknoledgeableperson (|have a chat) 21:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Tracy Murphree. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources and it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Behavior Analyst Certification Board. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Qualified Applied Behavior Analysis Credentialing Board. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neurodivergent Voices and AI Assumptions, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Neurodivergent Voices and AI Assumptions and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Neurodivergent Voices and AI Assumptions 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. HurricaneZeta^C 15:48, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Neurodivergent Voices and AI Assumptions, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an "attack page" or an unsourced biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone. (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)
  Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity, or articles about living people that are entirely negative and unsourced. Attack pages, attack files and negative unreferenced BLPs are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing

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. Felicia (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The article Anna Stadler has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

LLM-generated, author blocked. Citations consist entirely of interviews and user-generated content.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. – bradv 22:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aaron Kinsey 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/Aaron Kinsey 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 until the discussion has finished.

– bradv 22:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Madeleine Coghlan 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/Madeleine Coghlan 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 until the discussion has finished.

– bradv 22:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The article Behavior Analyst Certification Board has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

LLM-generated, author blocked.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The article Jacob Martinez has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

LLM-generated, author blocked. History shows some cleanup, but notability issues remain.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The article Bill Waybourn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

LLM-generated, author blocked. Sources are nearly all mentions in passing, including several about his son, not him.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The article Tracy Murphree has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

LLM-generated, author blocked.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 06:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The article Qualified Applied Behavior Analysis Credentialing Board has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

LLM-generated, author blocked.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The article Sarah Hollenstein Career and Technology Center has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

LLM-generated, author blocked.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)