User talk:Coconut99 99

Welcome!

Hello, Coconut99 99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- JLaTondre 01:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of Relevant Content[edit]

The Counterarguments section calls forth China's record of social harmony, familial strength and general values. As such, a response to the Chinese government's track record in providing such values at the sacrifice of Human Rights is material to the discussion of Human rights in China. If you want to eliminate a response to material already introduced into the article, then you must remove the material it responds to. However, I believe this is ill-advised, since China often points to decreased corruption of government, higher social values at the sacrifice of human rights. This is, in fact, China's argument and it deserves attention. Additionally, without arguing the quantity of benefits on both sides, you cannot arrive at a true decision as a reader as to the claims' validity. In other words, has China's trade-off of "Asian Values" for the common good versus human rights actually worked? We often make the same claim in the U.S. and advocacy groups need to be on the watch for empty claims where what is sacrificed was not worth what was gained. Loss of rights of a select few must be weighed with the gains of the group diligently to assure both social harmony and economic gain no matter what the system of government. This is an appropriate section to address the validity of the claims of the CCP in regards to Human Rights.

In addition, I have continually tried to engage you on this topic and you have not responded to my comments. Rather than continaully blanking content, which is your habit based on reading your talk page, perhaps you should engage and respond with facts, citations and your own text rather than elimination of others well-cited, well-referenced work. --Cookie888 (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you never even tried to read my replies, as you continuously add message at random places of my talk page instead of adding them at the end.

I have repeatedly pointed out that subject such as legal issues and one-child policies have their appropriate sections.
Matters such as corruption and divorce rate have nothing to do with human rights and that's all the references are on. The rest are all opinions without facts.
You yourself noted that your material (all the original text coming from you) lacks facts, then why in the world inserting them in when you don't have facts?

Coconut99 99 (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section blanking[edit]

Again, you have blanked a section again that contained cited materials. Blanking of content, without reading sources (this content was blanked within minutes of sources being posted) because you do not like it is not an adequate reason. The section you deleted had pertinent links and cited all sources for all facts. If you would like to posit another opinion feel free, but simply deleting content that is in direct response to the material at hand (China's reasoning for human rights abuses) does not further your point, but rather mutes someone elses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookie888 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion section. I've pointed out exactly the reason why your text wasn't accepted. It had NOTHING to do with human rights. What does corruption and divorce rate (and citations on these two) have anything to do with human rights? I am tired of repeating this again and again (and you seems to like adding message to my talk page at random places didn't help either). Please read the definition of WP:Vandalism. Your insertion of irrelevant material and your personal opinion constitutes vandalism. Coconut99 99 (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Blanking[edit]

On 5-May, you blanked Democracy in China. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If this was the result of a broken edit, you may wish to make the correct edits. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 01:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop arsing around with this and other pages, or I'll bookmark every page you touch and RV it automatically. John Smith's 21:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though this is in response to my comment, I'm assuming this was actually directed at Coconut99 99 and not me. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you were to do as you threaten, you would be the one in violation of policy. You may disagree with Coconut99 99's edits on Chinese human rights, but with the exception of the one case of blanking, he has done nothing else (that I saw) that could qualify as vandalism. Even if he had, he has also made good faith edits in other articles. As such, an auto-revert of his edits would be wrong. Please check out WP:BITE, WP:AGF, and WP:POINT. -- JLaTondre 21:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts?[edit]

That's a highly ironic statement given your username. :) I find that whenever I am accused of being "biased" in reference to China it is by people that are themselves highly prejudiced and really need to get a dose of reality. I don't know you and you don't know me. But if you continue to push your POV (I spend most of my time reverting edits by people like you) I won't hesitate to reinstate the correct page version. John Smith's 22:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I do dispute it. What exactly is my bias? Not wanting to cover up China's problems? John Smith's 22:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to push your POV agenda, I will put a POV on there. If you revert my edit w/o even looking at it, I will revert it back. The stuff I edited are all things that I feel are partial. As I mentioned in the discussion page of human rights of PRC, the same fact presenting differently has totally different perceptions. I don't mean to cover the problems, if you look at my edits, I kept the counter arguments and mostly rearranged sentences. As a Chinese, I personally felt insulted the way you describe China. I am sure some Americans would feel funny and some would feel insulted reading the paraphrase example

A lot of issues, such as One-Child policy are widely supported by Chinese in general. Sure some Chinese use one-child policy / FLG as an excuse to get green card, but that is not really the general opinion on such. As for the abortion issue, it is hotly debated depending on your religion and such. If you ONLY present one side of view, that is not NPOV.

And how did you counter my argument that the human rights page of the US has POV tag? You never really answered.

In the end, if you really want to push your agenda of smearing the image of China, I would of course shove it back.

Your requested info was supplied. And to be honest I'm not in the mood to really care what you think. The article needs to be improved, but it's ridiculous to say that I (hell, I haven't even contributed that much to the page) or anyone else is "smearing" China. I could counter that by saying that the actions of people like yourself hurt China because you try to hush things up, qualify them, pretend "they aren't so bad", etc. I won't say that now, but really if you want to make the page more positive don't push your particular view. I am not pushing my view, because I'm reinserting material that I never put there in the first place. Whereas you are the only one that thinks the edits you make need to be made.

I'm not involved with the US page, so whether there's a tag there or not isn't my business. John Smith's 23:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info requested[edit]

It took me about two minutes - as it would have done if you had looked for it. John Smith's 23:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the line/paragraph. In fact, I saw this on government reason to crack down:

"5. It is prohibited to fabricate or distort facts, to spread rumours on purpose or use other means to incite [people] and disturb social order;"

If you're telling me that no one has ever criticised the Chinese government for telling lies about the Falun Gong, then I'm not really sure what to say. About the rest. Look, if you haven't noticed, not every single piece of information on wikipedia has a reference. There are limits to what one can put in. If you question everything then really it's too much.

No, wikipedia is about stating FACTS, not opinions. All facts should be given a reference. Do not put something in if you are not capable of providing a reference.

On a side-note, can you be so kind as to tell if you're a Chinese person living in the PRC or not. John Smith's 19:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Chinese born and raised in China, currently living in US. If that matters :)

Not really. Just wanted to be sure of something. A small thing, can you please tell me why you keep having to rv the bit on the one-child policy before you edit it next time? I'm getting a little tired of all these rvs. If you want to edit further, can we please discuss it on the talk article page first. John Smith's 20:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do the same for all edits to the page, not just ones on that area. John Smith's 20:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in China[edit]

Hi Coco. Thanks for your contributions to this article. Take a look at the policy page, esp wp:pov and wp:soap. We can't say that something is 'ironic'. Alexwoods (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, that text was meant to counter the point made by the US. You can't just give one side of the view without its background. Coconut99 99 (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, the next edit you made was perfect. I agree that it's important to the article to mention that G Bay is a prison camp, but it's POV to say "ironic". Good changes. I'm going to develop the terrorism sentence a bit when I get a chance. Alexwoods (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coco, I've re-added the section on Responses to counterarguments, because the counterarguments section gives new data as a reasoning behind what perhaps a majority of people consider human rights abuses. In order to provide context around use of culture as reasoning, I've readded the removed section and provided links to the One-Child Policy in order to avoid repeating information. While I see why you believe this section is inappropriate, I think it would be even more inappropriate to detail in each section (One Child, China, Corruption etc) the relation of these to China's reasoning behind human rights violations. The current structure seems to make more sense, is more coherent and more concise. Readers can move to other sections for more detailed information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookie888 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned that this passage has several problems:

irrelevant to human rights. What does divorce rate or little emperor has anything to do with human rights?
lack of citations. Citation on divorce rate doesn't help
one-child policy has been mentioned in a prior section. Appropriate argument should be made in that section.

Please, when you revert my edits, you should read the article first. Also, it is generally better to have arguments / counter arguments stated in the same section. Don't start a new section since soon we could end up with a counter-counter-counter argument section. Coconut99 99 (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated blanking of sections[edit]

In Counterarguments, the author argues that the current regime cites protection of Asian culture at the expense of human rights having an overall positive effect in China. Was the author wrong to conclude that Chinese social values and culture implies the following characteristics: strong families, low levels of crime, strong moral value systems, etc?

I believe the original author intended to show that many argue that Asian culture has been destroyed in China by authoritarian control and not that it has been furthered at the sacrifice of the human rights of a few. This obviates the claim made in counterarguments. You cannot open the door to using culture as a reason and then not allow a response to this on the basis of human rights and culture. Feel free to leave the section as "original research" until you are satisfied with the citings in the section, however simply deleting it is not acceptable and is, I believe, vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookie888 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1st, make sure you add your message at the END of the page. In case you are not familiar with Wikipedia, use + tab to add the message so that I don't have to look at the change page to tell what's going on.

2nd, I knew it was you who added the text and it was you who wanted inserted irrelevant text, which was WP:Vandalism. I do check the quality of the text being inserted (although the fact the quality of existing text is pretty bad).

3rd. I see now that you added more content that now starts to make some sense. However, it was still largely WP:OR (and you yourself admitted it so). Please note that Wikipedia is not a forum, but a place to write down WP:FACTs, not your opinions. Coconut99 99 (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NVM, the part made sense wasn't your addition. I moved your stuff to the talk page. If you were going to add something, please check if this page is the appropriate page. Coconut99 99 (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation[edit]

You have violated the 3RR rule on the Human rights in the People's Republic of China article by making four reversions within 24 hours. Remember, you do not have to use the revert option to make a revert - this edit counts as a reversion as you were restoring text you had added previously.

I suggest that you undo your last revert. Otherwise I will have to report you. John Smith's (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you guys were reverting my changes without discussion and ignore the facts. If you want, get an arbitrator for the matter. Coconut99 99 (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the rules. If you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours you can be automatically blocked. Just because you feel that you are right does not mean you can ignore those regulations - they're there for everyone.

I'll give you one last opportunity to revert. Please don't be stubborn - you can resolve this on the talk page. But I'm not going to let you break the rules. John Smith's (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have 2 people work together on reverting (> 3 changes) without discussion and reason for removing my change first.

The fact more than one person objects to your editing should make you think that maybe you are wrong. And I have explained why I reverted you - Alex has also tried to talk to you, but you are not listening.

I'm sorry, but I will have to report you - clearly you think the rules do not apply to you. John Smith's (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't about democracy since next time I could ask a friend to revert your reverts, just like here. Does it make sense? I am very open to the talks, but you guys started this revert thing first. Coconut99 99 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. If you asked a friend to come here you would be blocked for meatpuppetry. I do not know Alex, but I agree with his motivations for undoing your POV edits. That's the difference. John Smith's (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for violating the 3RR policy. If you undo your last reversion on Human rights in the People's Republic of China then you will avoid a block. If you do not I think you probably will be blocked. John Smith's (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Burde.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Burde.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. John Smith's (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC) John Smith's (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to prove the image is fake (or the site faked it, at least beyond the reasonable doubt). Just because you are lazy and didn't do research, doesn't mean others didn't do their research.

As I said, I do not need to prove it is fake. I need to merely point out that it is unreliable. John Smith's (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you need to prove it is unreliable. Coconut99 99 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said fake, not unreliable. And it is not for you to decide - the admins do. John Smith's (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it like you had it before for now. 18:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Image:Burde.jpg[edit]

Please do not remove tags from images like that. It is vandalism. Just because you disagree with me does not mean that you can remove the tag. Besides, it doesn't change the deletion process. You must wait until the outcome of the decision. John Smith's (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I 've responded, please check the discussions.

Next time do not remove the tag - it does nothing to change what happens. John Smith's (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the People's Republic of China[edit]

Two things. One, since I am going to be the one that fixes all of your English mistakes, I would really appreciate it if you would start from the old article, which was at least written clearly, add fact tags, and delete unfactual statements, instead of writing a whole new article that will require a massive grammar edit. Two, you are adding new uncited statements (for instance the ridiculous assertion that polygamy was technically prohibited since the Han) which will be the first thing that I delete when I start editing this article. If you're not going to honor the previous editor's work by fact-tagging rather than deleting, don't expect me to give you that much credit either. Alexwoods (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That text was copied from Polygamy. You can remove that sentence.

The other text was horrible. It has no chronological ordering (which I have pointed out in discussion), and full of opinions. It also has no sense of structure. You are welcome to copy / paste sections of it and organize it a bit.

Sure, my grammar sucks, but it is better than content sucks. You should learn to not to blank the whole text. Coconut99 99 (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's see if we can come up with something mutually acceptable. Alexwoods (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am still planning on adding 2 more sections in that page, besides the existing ones:

gender imbalance
women in engineering. This is actually an interesting subject. I read somewhere that in 198x, 40%+ engineers in China are women. Only later on such percentage drops as women shifted their interests. This topic can be an interesting women study one.

I'd rather have the page as academic as possible rather than a political outlet for the US view. Coconut99 99 (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. Watch out for WP:OR but in general keep up the good work. Alexwoods (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coconut. Thanks for your comment on my talk page. If I understand correctly, you think that the historical discussion should not be in the intro - is that right? When you clarify, I'll go ahead and make some changes. Also note I changed my username. Yunfeng (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. yes, that's basically I was saying. I was mainly concerned with potential misinterpretations (the very old text I removed, fro instance, had some mixed ups in time frame). Maybe the "historical perspective" section should be "historical and cultural perspective" as well, since some of the traditions you mentioned still exists (prefer sons over daughters). Thanks. Coconut99 99 (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea, and I would support it, but I don't really have time right now. Why don't you do it? Don't worry about your English, it's fine, and if there are any typos I'll do a little cleanup later. Yunfeng (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. B (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:COATRACK. The Dalai Lama's alleged ties with other organizations have nothing to do with the article in question. --B (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my insertion to your talk page. Background/credibilty check is important part of determining what is fact. Coconut99 99 (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

regarding your reverts on Racism in the People's Republic of China[edit]

Hi, I checked one reference, the Barry Sautman paper. It mentions the preferential policies aimed at ethnic minorities, but it doesn't mention the other assertions. The source in Chinese seems to be a forum, so it can't be used as a reliable source. So the problem remains that is not established how these preferential policies are related to racism. They are not affirmative action, as the idea of affirmative action is redress the consequences of past racism. Nothing is said about the motivation of these preferential policies, making it unclear whether they are related to racism or to something else (like the desire to buy political approval of ethnic minorities etc.).

So I would propose to remove the statement by Dainzhub Onboin or add a neutral and independent evaluation of whether this statement is true or not. My guess is that this statement is bull, given the widespread discontent among at least some ethnic minorities like the Uygurs or the Tibetans.

Furthermore, that preferential policies are reverse racism, or even affirmative actions, and that Han Chinese are treated as second-class citizens are unsourced, and most likely POV. But then, the article is a mess anyway as almost no context and only a few information snippets are provided. Novidmarana (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of CookSwing[edit]

I have nominated CookSwing, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CookSwing. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy in China[edit]

Hey, I saw you worked on Democracy in China. Would you please come back and help some more? It's a pretty confusing page, with parts about Taiwan and China mixed together. Thanks Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

It's incredibly refreshing to see someone diligently objecting to the absurd notion that western media is unbiased and factual; all too often, both on Wikipedia and in real life, people seem to take what's shown on CNN or whatever as final, verified, uncensored truth. Just wanted to let you know that there's someone out there who's a Westerner and a capitalist and very much appreciates your efforts. evildeathmath 03:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:MenAndWomenAreEqual.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:MenAndWomenAreEqual.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 06:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:WomanHoldUpHalfSky.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:WomanHoldUpHalfSky.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.[edit]

The subject in question is not a terrorist attack. No reliable sources have referred to the protesting as an act of non-state terrorism. the news source in question is not a reliable source as far as wikipedia is concerned. Xinhua News Agency is not an RS and is state-run media which I referred to as propaganda. Can you please self-revert to avoid an edit war? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted in the discussion page of that page, for calling Chinese state media as propaganda, I can say the same for the western media. So unless you have something that proves the news as fake, such claim would constitute your original research. In fact, during last year's Tibet incident, western media has shown plenty of mis-inform mis-represent information (see anti-cnn.com for plenty of hard facts) to support their bias.

At the same time, it is also ridiculous (and insulting) to consider it as propaganda. Should 9/11 report by the U.S. government be considered as propaganda? given its statements on WMD in Iraq are all lies? You can cite western media with DIRECT evidence (rather than quotes or unaccountable statements) to dispute it, but removing the item simply because you think it is "propaganda" is POV. Coconut99 99 (talk) 07:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources consider the news agency of serving the interests of China and acting as a propaganda machine for the government. Also, wikipedia classifies the source as unreliable and therefore we cannot cite it in articles unless we are referring to the organization itself. If you can find a 3rd party RS that refers to the protest deaths as acts of terrorism then the paragraph can stay. Could you please self-revert now? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is ridiculous to classify Xinhua as unreliable source simply because it is state media. The U.S. media has been used as propaganda machine for the U.S. government drumming up Iraq war. Relying on western media is one sided. Show me the LINK that considered it as unreliable source. Coconut99 99 (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be but according to wikipedia policy the source cannot be used. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't find any LINK regarding such policy explicitly states Xinhua cannot be used. Coconut99 99 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of CookXml for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CookXml 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/CookXml 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]