User talk:Michael Powerhouse

You added "The US. Preventive Services Task Force, in its May 2012 Final Recommendation Statement on skin cancer counseling, stated that studies that measured long-term or total sun exposure had found no association between cumulative sun exposure and either SCC or BCC.^[1]"

Source says "On the basis of 5 fair- or good-quality cohort studies and 7 fair- or good-quality case–control studies, increasing intermittent sun exposure in childhood and during one's lifetime is associated with an increased risk for both squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma"

Which is the exact opposite of what you wrote? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: Apologies. I used the wrong source. I'll use an attribution and just print it verbatim from this review. You can double check if you'd like to make sure this text really is in the source: "The US. Preventive Services Task Force, in its May 2012 Final Recommendation Statement on skin cancer counseling, stated that studies that measured long-term or total sun exposure had found no association between cumulative sun exposure and either SCC or BCC."^[2]--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, I think there may be a difference between "long-term or total sun exposure" and "intermittent" sun exposure. You're in a better position to judge this as a doctor, but I thought it was different. I suppose to make the statement more neutral we could include both clauses?. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

So which source is supporting this?

The 2011 review in the AIM

Or this review from a journal with an impact factor of 0. That source is not suitable as it is not a reputable journal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the "2011 review in the AIM" is the one you said says the opposite. I'll have to check that. I got the direct quotation from the study that you says comes from a "journal with an impact factor of 0", which is text that I don't see on the NCBI link you sent me. What is an impact factor of 0? Is that your term or an industry term? All I know is that it's from 2016 and is a review (secondary source) from a journal article, which meets the minimum WP:MEDRS standards. Who believes that the source is not suitable and reputable? Can you point to somewhere on Wikipedia that explicitly says that? I mean, do you just believe that the information I'm tagging is just plain incorrect, or do you not agree with it, or does it go against your own beliefs as a doctor, etc.? Can you work with me here and tell me what your motivation is. My motivation is to enjoy editing Wikipedia and make pages more neutral, especially with regards to the sun: I believe that there is a "sun scare" that goes too far, so when I see what appears to be evidence that speaks to the contrary, I put it up to balance an article. Thanks. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

{ping|Doc James}, I found another user who backs up the source as being valid. So we're seeing some (just a little, but some) consensus here. (This isn't a personal attack on your medical background or on you personally; I'm merely trying to politely make my case. Please don't be offended).

The Hoel paper is a systematic review from 4 different institutions and distinguished authors whose combined publication total is 993. Among many other topics well-discussed, it states a valid relationship in the literature that an indoor lifestyle combined with excessive sunscreen use has paralleled the increasing prevalence of vitamin D deficiency and melanoma over the past few decades. I wouldn't classify an article from Semin Cutan Med Surg as "higher quality"; and "no impact factor" doesn't mean zero impact factor. The Hoel review presents a valid argument per WP:5P2 and should be reinstated. --Zefr (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

- You can find it at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vitamin_D#Review --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The two of you do not get to void WP:MEDRS. That is consensus developed over many years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Health effects of sunlight exposure shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: Does one revert count as an edit war? Here is my one revert on the Health effects of sunlight exposure article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_effects_of_sunlight_exposure&diff=755730234&oldid=755577598. You have been deleting almost everything I've put up across a variety of articles, yet you are threatening to ban me for engaging in an "edit war"? Can you please describe why you seem to be targeting my activity? I believe that my edits are proper per 5 pillars WP:PILLARS, core content policies WP:CCPOL, and WP:5P5.

I would rather work with you in a collaborative way. I read the Wikipedia article about you. I respect your mission. I am trying to help. Please help me. Thank you. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There is good evidence that melanoma is related to sun exposure and you have added that it decreases the risk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Basal-cell carcinoma shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: No problem. I want to work collaboratively and learn from more experienced editors, but I feel like you and Doc James delete everything I write on Wikipedia. I do not understand why. I feel like I'm following the rules. I see people doing reverts across articles all the time, yet I'm getting a warning when the case seems to be that I 1. Put up text, and 2. You or Doc James just take it down. Please help me. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You have been generating content across several articles giving UNDUE weight to the putative safety of sunlight and artificial tanning and downplaying the risks. This is the problem. If you believe that current content overplays the risk, then please discuss that on that talk page to reach consensus. The key thing is to look at what all the best, current MEDRS sources say. In my reading they don't create the picture you have been painting. If you believe they do, please explain that on the relevant article talk page. thx Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Okay, I will. I appreciate the advice. I do believe that there is a type of "sun scare" happening that is a little overboard, which is behind my motivation to add the content I do. But I'll state that up front on the Talk pages. I was feeling a little stalked for a bit there, but now I understand where you're coming from. I'm here as a hobbyist. Just out of curiosity, what's your motivation for spending so much time on Wikipedia? Do you work for the company or something? --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I work for a company but that is completely unrelated to my WP editing. My motivation is that I like doing this. I wasn't asking you to state your motivation on the Talk page. I asked you to discuss what you see as wrong with the content and what better content would be, based on MEDRS sources and policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Michael Powerhouse. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, 2016 Illinois Republican legislative candidates, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Mattlore (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mattlore: Thanks for the heads up. After looking at it, I agree. I should have been more meticulous meeting the Notability requirement. Thanks for your help - --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The article Upstream Ideas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Pretty obscure webcast/radio commentary operation. Also, utterly unsourced.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Calton | Talk 17:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Upstream Ideas 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/Upstream Ideas 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. Calton | Talk 09:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

...cite NY Times, WaPost, Politico

You've done no such thing: those three references aren't citations, they're the organization's head being quoted in the news stories. Not to mention that the New York Times reference doesn't even support the claim made in the article, and the Politico reference is irrelevant to the subject of Energy and Policy Institute itself; the latter bit seems almost indistinguishable from original research. --Calton | Talk 10:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Michael Powerhouse. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Energy and Policy Institute, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Calton | Talk 10:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The article Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

An unpassed U.S. bill. Not a law: a bill. Sources that basically say "Look, here's a bill" or "Look, here's a bill and here's what might happen if it passed. WP:CRYSTAL applies.

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. Calton | Talk 08:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your work here. I know you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, as am I. However, I respectfully disagree.

Per the Wikipedia guideline for Notability: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Source: WP:N.

Per the Notability guidelines:

"A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

* It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and

* It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." Source: WP:N.

The article passes Wikipedia's test for new articles, which can be found at the same page I've sourced above or specifically the section on that page which can be found at WP:GNG.

Here are the itemized requirements found at WP:GNG which is listed at WP:N:

* The article has significant coverage. While it only needs one source of significant coverage, it has several. Please view the list of references on the article you've proposed deleting. Among the references are Forbes, Fortune, the Wall Street Journal, the Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank, The Hill, and The New York Times.

* Reliable sources. I would argue pretty easily that the above-mentioned resources are reliable and meet "editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline".

* Secondary sources. The sources listed above are secondary, not primary.

* "Independent of the subject." The bill and bill's authors did not write the news articles used as references listed above; thus the references are independent of the subject.

The article is written in the past tense modal, (i.e. the bill "would have" done x, y z) because the congressional session in which the bill was introduced has concluded. The verb tense should not be confused as a "crystal ball". It makes no predictions of the future.

Additionally, it's worth noting that dozens of legislative articles exist for bills that were not signed into law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_legislation_of_the_114th_United_States_Congress and see similar categories for other Congresses. There are probably hundreds of unpassed bills that are standing articles in Wikipedia.

--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Your wikilawyering has been noted. See you at AFD. --Calton | Talk 11:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act 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/Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act 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. Calton | Talk 11:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Energy and Policy Institute 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/Energy and Policy Institute 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. Calton | Talk 00:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Michael Powerhouse, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of LocalLabs, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. SoWhy 18:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The article Bill Voss (attorney) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable person. A significant amount of content was removed as being "attack page" in tone.

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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nancy Kimme 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/Nancy Kimme 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. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

A tag has been placed on Linq3, 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 seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, 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. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 1998 Colombian government banking scandal. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Granahorrar Bank. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Granahorrar Bank. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. CheeseCrisps (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

An unusual high proportion of your articles are getting deleted. This indicates to me the possibility that you are may be working as a paid editor, for the COI involved in paid editing rarely produce acceptable work, or that you need to refresh your knowledge of standards for notability, and for non-promotional content. I'll be glad to offer you some help in doing them better, * if * you can show me that you are not an undeclared paid editor and have no COI with the subjects you choose to write about. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I came here to say the exact same thing. Most of the articles appear to be thinly-disguised PR pieces with no regard to our policies and guidelines. Please respond on the issues raised by DGG above. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I am a volunteer editor and don't have any connections with the organizations I've created. It's just been a fun hobby for me, when I read a news article about a cool company I like to add it to Wikipedia. If you have any links I should read to become a better editor, I'm all ears. Thanks. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Hi Michael, I'm concerned about this too; 42.5 percent of the articles you've created have been deleted (17 of 40). That, together with the nature of the articles, is suggestive of paid editing. There is guidance regarding how to disclose at WP:UPE. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AbelsonTaylor 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/AbelsonTaylor 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. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Linq3 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/Linq3 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. DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Liberty Justice Center 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/Liberty Justice Center 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. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Responsible Budget Coalition 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/Responsible Budget Coalition 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. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Center for Tax and Budget Accountability 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/Center for Tax and Budget Accountability 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. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Simmons (attorney) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Simmons (attorney) 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. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The article North Dakota Private Investigation and Security Board has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of significance

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. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. Delete it. I notice that all you administrators do is tear down others' works without actually creating a whole lot of articles yourselves. Maybe you have. Maybe I'm wrong. But if you are so so so bothered by this article, then just do us all a favor and take it down dude. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It shows I'm active on Wikipedia and try to improve the encyclopedia. Most of the administrators on here just go around tearing down other peoples' work instead of building articles themselves. It's pretty pathetic. But keep doing what you're doing with your "administrative powers" because you enjoy using them. You do. Admit it. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brent Coon 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/Brent Coon 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. John from Idegon (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James P. Reese 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/James P. Reese 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. MalayHooman (talk) 09:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James P. Reese 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/James P. Reese 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. Jujucommon (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brent Coon 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/Brent Coon (2nd nomination) 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.

MarioGom (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The article Steve Minn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear to be notable - city councillor does not qualify for WP:NPOL as not state-wide office, and does not otherwise appear to meet the GNG.

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. firefly ( t · c ) 09:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The article Pat Hughes (lawyer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Person is not a public figure or currently employed by organization of note or relevance

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I see you haven't edited in years... Unfortunate, because I wanted to let you know that an article that you created in years gone by, that was later deleted, is now live in the main space (Liberty Justice Center) Iljhgtn (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)