User talk:Brad101/Archive 9

Main Page appearance: Douglas MacArthur
This is a note to let the main editors of Douglas MacArthur know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 26, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/January 26, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Douglas MacArthur (1880–1964) was an American general who played a prominent role in the Pacific theater during World War II. He received the Medal of Honor, as did his father, was one of only five men to rise to the rank of General of the Army in the U.S. Army, and the only man to become a field marshal in the Philippine Army. After graduating first in his West Point class in 1903, he participated in the 1914 occupation of Veracruz and served on the Western Front during World War I, becoming the U.S. Army's youngest major general. Thereafter he held a variety of posts, including Superintendent of West Point and Chief of Staff. He retired in 1937, but was recalled to active duty during World War II. After the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, he escaped with his family and staff to Australia, where he became Supreme Commander, Southwest Pacific Area. He fulfilled a famous pledge to return to the Philippines, and officially accepted Japan's surrender on 2 September 1945. He oversaw the occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1951, implementing many reforms, and led the United Nations Command in the Korean War until President Harry Truman had him relieved of his commands in April 1951. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior
Please do not taunt Cmguy777 as you did here. Thanks, and have a nice day. Yopienso (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Again
I appreciate your expertise in many areas and your helpfulness at the TJ article. Again, however, you have behaved in a nonconstructive manner toward one or more editors while helping improve the article.

Your closing of a discussion on the TJ talk page was unnecessary. It's the article talk page, not User:Brad101's talk page, nor a CfD or AfD. There was no RfC. NB "that intervening to close a discussion where this mode of resolution is not customary may prove to be incendiary instead of clarifying." (WP:CLOSE) Sure, GW specifically addressed TVH and you; TVH gave what I consider a misguided response, while you gave none. I'm a frequent editor and constant watcher at that article, as you know, and it was altogether appropriate for me to comment on WP:WEIGHT. If the dialog between GW and me annoyed you, you should have best stayed away. Yopienso (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unwarranted self-importance. Brad (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly I how interpret your closing a discussion that didn't need closing. I don't know what part of what I have done you consider unwarranted self-importance--my comment here, my reversion of your closure, my contributions to the talk page, or all of them. If it matters to you, let me know.
 * So, since we're two reasonable and intelligent editors who have worked well together in the past, how do we get over this bump in the road? Examine it? Drop it? Either way is fine with me. The end result, I hope, will be collegial editing in the future. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification
This is to inform you that  USS Constitution, which you nominated at WP:FAC,  will appear on the Main Page  as  Today's Featured Article on 18 January 2015. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I had to squeeze the text down to about 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A better date for this would be February 20th which marks the 200th anniversary of the double capture by Constitution of HMS Cyane and Levant. Truthfully, I'm not thrilled about a main page appearance because of all the crap edits that will occur. My experience with President as TFA was that I had to restore the article to the version prior to the TFA. But I understand that it's really not my call in the end. Anyway, please consider the date change; thanks. Brad (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The scheduled date is 16 January not 18th – my typo in the above notification (apologies). In view of the forthcoming bicentennial I will replace USS Constitution on the January date. I won't be doing the February scheduling but I'll pass this note to User:Crisco 1492, together with your reservations about MP appearances, and leave it to him to decide about 20 February. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. I think the date relevance would make it much better for the February date, so I don't mind scheduling on the 20th. Fortunately (well, for our purposes), things have slowed down quite a bit since 2011, so hopefully the experience isn't too stressful. But if you feel really strongly about it, we can find something else. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's okay to go for 20 Feb. The article is overdue for a main page appearance and the capture of the two British ships was quite likely the last major engagement of the War of 1812; even though a peace treaty was in the works. I'll see what I can polish up before the TFA date. Brad (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

USS Congress
I've attempted to fix the broken links resulting from the reorganisation of the history.naval.mil website. I think that the DANFS changes are OK, but can you check this change  to see if I've got the right target.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

List of USN ships
Hello, I've been doing some updating and correcting on the article List of current ships of the United States Navy. I see that you contributed a great deal to article previously. At one point, with about a half dozen edits, you added 24 ships to the section "Ready Reserve Force ships". You listed them all as belonging to the Cape Ducato class, however that is a class of only 5 ships. I'm wondering if you had other info that stated these other 19 ships were considered a part of that class? If not, then if you have some free time, would mind stopping by the article and help correct this? From what I've (briefly) read, most of these ships are from various sources, builders and countires. Some are listed as "Type C7 ships", while others don't have any such designation. Anyway, any help help you could provide would be appreciated. - the WOLF  child  01:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't contributed to or maintained the article in several years and have no plans to do so. If memory serves, the information on Cape Ducato may have been obtained from Sealift Command pages. You need to use the Naval Vessel Register for current information. Brad (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

USS Constitution
Once you are reverted, then per WP:BRD, instead of reverting your edit again, you should go to the talk page. Then you actually explain your edit instead of leaving cryptic edit summaries. - the WOLF  child  22:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly was not explained? There is a mos for pic placement; especially to retain FA status. It's an encyclopedic article; not a photo gallery. Brad (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a link to an actual policy that says that image should not be in the article? Something other than "mos pic to fa"...? In the meantime, you were reverted so the images should remain in place, until there is a discussion on the talk page and consensus to remove/move them. I'm sure you already know this. I would prefer you revert yourself in the meantime. Thanks - the WOLF  child  23:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:4th-century ships has been nominated for discussion
Category:4th-century ships, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Ship weaponry
Just curious as to why you removed several naval gun articles stating that they are "Not within wpships scope" when it clearly states that "Articles on ship weaponry" are within the exceptions?Pennsy22 (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Exception means they're not. Brad (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guess I just didn't know the meaning of Exception, obviously thought it meant the opposite. Sorry about the dumb question. Looking at the list I see the "Fictitious Ships" is on the list, that should have been a clue.Pennsy22 (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Britannias
Hi Brad101, glad to see you are back rating ship articles. I've missed you as I avoid rating articles I myself initiated. (The downside of that is that I don't always agree with your characterization. :-) ) I have been turning out some stubby articles as a by-product of trying to sort out some perhaps more notable vessels that had common names, and even some not-so-common ones. Do I recall correctly that somewhere the WP:Ships project declared all vessels notable? If so, can you direct me to that spot. I would like to fling the policy at someone who has been going around recommending deletions of "non-notble" articles. Thanks and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * scope Brad (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The notability then is an inference, not an explicit statement. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sirène
Hi Brad101, I have done what I can. It's a little out of my period so my resources are limited. She was a notable vessel, having been the French flagship at Navarino, and so should have an article. I don't have a stub template at hand and would request that you add one. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Draft:City of New York (disambiguation)
I declined your proposed deletion of Draft:City of New York (disambiguation) as proposed deletion is not applicable in draft space. However, I have nominated the draft for deletion under Miscellany for Deletion, WP:MFD. Safiel (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The link to the discussion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:City of New York (disambiguation). Safiel (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I wasn't sure where to take it. Brad (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

ships?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_White_Fleet_in_Albany,_Western_Australia_in_1908 - when the article was created, there had been no intention of repeating lists of any of the US ships (the coalers are something else)  but mystifed by why ships tag comes in - milhist, maritime, accepted - but the actual specific ships are not really the focus of the article - as the main article deals with that the article is more the process involved in the visit, the coaling, anyways. cheers JarrahTree 04:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious two years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Assessing ship articles

 * Hi Brad, I just noticed your comment on DpDH's user page. Thanks for the backup. I was just thinking of asking you to weigh in. It really is getting annoying to have to respond to and fend off people who feel they have a mandate from Heaven to improve Wikipedia by enforcing rules they misunderstand or make up. Cheers,Acad Ronin (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked at other assessment edits he made and it's clear to me that he doesn't understand the criteria. Since he has run away, I think the issue is over. Brad (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we not assume bad faith?, you should know that there will be many times that you have to explain a policy or guideline to someone. It's Wikipedia. Anyone can edit. Let's not run people off the site just because they get it wrong once. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, I assume you mean "good faith". Over the years I have seen the amount of vandalism fall quite precipitously, which is all to the good. However, I have seen a rise in nannyism, which is not. I have all along believed that DpDH was acting in good faith, and that is precisely the problem. "The road to hell...". I like writing articles; I don't like having to spend time on self-appointed do-gooders, especially when it means cleaning up after them.Acad Ronin (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , so to break down your argument, you're really looking for all editors to have a 100% clue quotient. :-) I have a few problems with that. To start, all of us are here on a mission to give everyone "free access to the sum of all human knowledge," but Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor; sometimes you're going to have to show people how to do that. It isn't rocket science, sure. But there's so many code, policies, guidelines, and cultural norms around what we do that I'm sure even you or I have missed or misunderstood some.
 * With that in mind, I am genuinely astonished to find that you would rather assume bad faith—yes, bad faith, looking at "enforcing rules they ... make up" above—than help correcting what they're doing wrong. Practically speaking, doing so would save you and others more time in the long run. More widely, not helping others is pretty contemptible and helps drive away editors, old and new, directly and through word of mouth. (Spoiler alert: the Wikipedia community doesn't have a great reputation in this department.)
 * As an aside, I wonder what would have happened if people hadn't made any time for this self-appointed do-gooder when they had questions.   Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, Not a fair cop. I have often worked with newbies and responded to requests for help, though mostly with research questions, not policy ones. In this case I did not revert the editor's reversion of my reversion of his changes (note: he didn't ask for any guidance, he just created and imposed a rule). Instead, I went to his site, explained why he was wrong, and asked him to cut it out. He then copied my comment, and Brad101's supporting one, to Talk:Lord Eldon (1801 ship) to continue the discussion. That is where we are now. As for driving editors out, trust me, sometimes I feel like quitting after an encounter with some zealous vigilante. CheersAcad Ronin (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, he didn't ask for guidance. But that could very well be because he boldly made an edit, thinking he was taking the correct action, that you changed minutes later without any explanation in the edit summary. In that sort of situation, I might revert you too. ;-) If "vigilante" is referring to me, I apologize. I'm not trying to attack you. The astonishment referred to above is/was genuine = I felt compelled to respond. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ed, why are you on my talk page? Go get me a pastie. Brad (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I blame my watchlist! Always good to see you around, Brad. Pasties would be difficult to obtain now that I'm in North Carolina for grad school, but please feel free to ship me some. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Krake ZK 14
Hi, Am wondering about your START rating at talk section. To me it seems better. Thanks. Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.145.171.133 (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Brazils/Brazil
Hi Brad101, Interesting minor issue. Brazils≠Brazil. I have figured out the Brazil Banks, but haven't yet figured out (partly because I haven't tried), what people meant at the time when they wrote "Brazils", given that the country didn't really exist at the time. Any idea on what we should do to avoid it being treated as a typo when it isn't? Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I added the typo template and changed it back to 'Brazils'. All I can think of to fix that issue. Brad (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Super. Thanks. I have gone through and added the template to almost all of the 30 occurrences of the term in Wikipedia. In numerous cases readers would not view it as a typo, but it can't hurt to make the implicit explicit. The term seems to have been in use into the 19th century and reflected the fact that what is now Brazil was at the time a series of ports unconnected except by sea. The term then was a collective term for the set of Portuguese colonies. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Constellation
I have protected USS Constellation because you were involved in an edit war there. I am duty-bound to remind you about edit warring. Please don't do that. I would hope that the other editor will choose to discuss at one of the venues suggested by Editor Parsecboy.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Alki and WPSHIPS scope
Hi there! I noticed you. Alki is a civilian ship of 118 feet and gross tonnage of 196. Can you tell me why it is out of scope? Ibadibam (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Its a fireboat; let fire service have it. Brad (talk) 01:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "The scope of articles for this project is wide ranging. Essentially any article about a civilian or military ship and ship classes are welcome."Pennsy22 (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since I authored the majority of the scope you quote, I'm well aware of what it says. How much of my time are you going to waste? Brad (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We're all here to make Wikipedia a better place. I was genuinely confused by the discrepancy, and not trying to distract you, and were I to assume good faith I'd guess was in the same boat. Unless a new consensus emerges, let's stick to the project guidelines, which are clear as you've written them, and don't make any special exceptions for workboats of particular types. Ibadibam (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for your opinion
Greetings. I have noticed you've reviewed several of the ship articles I created, thankyou for that. However, a ship I've been working to a lot lately gives my quite the dilemma. You see, she was initially intended as a minelayer, but by 1944 she ended up being a multi-functional warship which carried out numerous escorts. She clearly was more than a minelayer, but the question is: what exactly should her second classification be? I went with destroyer escort, which at first seemed to fit her like a glove: she is a ~1000-ton warship, with ~20 knots speed, escorting many convoys, with rich AA armament and also carried two depth charge throwers. But you see, by 1944 her armament became remarkably rich, especially for her size. She carried 2 x 102 mm, 6 x 37 mm, 4 x 20 mm, and 4 x 13 mm. Thus my point is: can she be classified as an anti-aircraft cruiser due to the numerous AA guns she was fitted with by early 1944? Or is her size impeding this designation? Should I leave her as a minelayer/destroyer escort, or is there any metric by which she can be classified as AA cruiser? Awaiting your advice. Regards. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Typically, you can't consider the ship anything but what the sources say. If sources are unclear, then you have to use your best judgement. Brad (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood. Brown Water Admiral (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Would like your input in a discussion
Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Navigation room
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Navigation room&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. User:HopsonRoad 03:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Name changes
Hi Brad. I just noticed you changed the name of two of my recent new articles, eliminating the hull number. Last time I wrote a US Navy ship article, hull numbers were considered part of the name, has policy changed in that regard? Gatoclass (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The last discussion about it was 6 months ago. Brad (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious three years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Article templates
Hi Brad101, I saw you were interested in the ship template. May I demonstrate, in your namespace, how this works? ManosHacker talk 10:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Pakistan Merchant Navy
Hello, I noticed you removed WikiProject Ships from Pakistan Merchant Navy. Is there any reason for this? It is about a fleet of commercial ships.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_bkj0pCya18cHG5v&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Reassessment/review
First off, the most important question: Purple Drazi or Green Drazi? :D

Second, would you mind having a look through SS Sagaing? You recently added assessments for the Ships and Shipwrecks wikiprojects, and I've since updated the article. I'd love for a proper look through by a fresh pair of eyes and a reassessment of the quality ratings if someone's got the time.- ක - (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Article ratings
Hi Brad101, just wanted to let you know that I continue to appreciate your rating the articles I produce. I know I could do so, but I am highly uncomfortable rating my own articles so your intervention is most kind. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments; you seem to be one of the only editors that understands what I try to accomplish. However, I don't know how long I'm going to keep at it. Lately the new article load has been very high and each one needs to be checked and mistakes corrected if needed. If an especially bad new article comes around, it can take 30 minutes to get things fixed up. I'm losing the enthusiasm it takes to keep at it every day. I'm currently a couple of days behind because of high load and not giving a damn ;) Brad (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Nagatsuki
sorry this is not a ship index page - its a dab page as it says Nagatsuki is the traditional name of the month of September in the Japanese calendar. It can also refer to: the ships. The ship index page already exists as Japanese destroyer Nagatsuki. You've also added it to the category Japanese ship names causing a duplication in that list Lyndaship (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed
Hello Brad101! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! &mdash; MusikBot II  talk  17:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Wondering
Aye Brad. Was just wondering if you've given up on Wikipedia. The USS Constitution article needs a good and vigilant watcher. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for USS Chesapeake (1799), "the malignant frigate of the early US Navy"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

... five years now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson 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 Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson 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. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Douglas MacArthur in World War II


The article Douglas MacArthur in World War II has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Abandoned draft. All text herein was lifted from the main article, but the main article has been maintained and this draft has not been worked on."

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 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 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. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  18:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ships articles with incomplete B-Class checklists


A tag has been placed on Category:Ships articles with incomplete B-Class checklists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ships articles needing attention to referencing and citation


A tag has been placed on Category:Ships articles needing attention to referencing and citation indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)