User talk:CJinoz/Archive 10

Johnpacklambert
User:Johnpacklambert has a lot of nerve accusing others of chauvinism, considering his mass AfDing and redirecting of pageant articles. This also shows he either doesn't know or doesn't give a damn about notability guidelines. He also dishes out a lot of criticism (calling people chauvinists, bigots, and God knows what else), but heaven forbid anybody say anything the least bit contradictory to his own personal views. p b  p  19:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of people think that the whole beauty pageant set-up is inherently chauvanist, and some would argue that it is telling that a disproportionately high number of articles in Wikipedia are of young, fairly attractive women. I highly doubt many people would call advocating the deletion of articles on totally unnotable people who were Miss Nebraska in 2005 as anything other than a way to build up the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * and that says it all. Just because you don't like it or think it's important you get to play God. Smh. at least this is my talk page & you can't delete stuff you don't like. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think needs a whopping big banner on his talk page that says "Warning, this page is not an accurate account of discussions but only comments that I like".  He's like Trump in that respect. PageantUpdater (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're correct in that regard, . And, I don't think your concept of "totally unnotable" jibes with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Generally speaking, you think all LDS officials are notable and few, if any state-level pageant winners are.  That means you vote delete on pageant winners even if they pass GNG with reliable, independent sources.  Conversely, you vote keep on articles about LDS officials even if they don't have reliable, independent sources.  If you actually followed Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, you'd vote keep on articles that have reliable, independent sources.  And I still think it's off for you to call us chauvinists at the same time you're voting delete on female articles and keep on male ones.  But considering your past track record of calling people you disagree with bigots, that's par for the course.   p  b  p  13:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Please desist in posting insulting messages about me
Calling another editor "childish" because they remove comments from their talk page, which the Wikipedia guidelines clearly say they can do, is not acceptable behavior. If you continue posting this and other insulting messages that constitute personal attacks on me, I may have to create an administrators notice board report on you for violating the rules of Wikipedia. One clear rule is you never have standing to revert back onto a talk page material that the user to whom the talk page is connected has removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please cease and desist from deleting reasoned conversations we are trying to have with your about your disruptive editing and I will happily desist. I wasn't aware of that rule but I hate it because it protects cowards like you who want to ignore a very reasonable point for discussion. PageantUpdater (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My editing is not disruptive, your failure to assume good faith is. The process of creating a deletion nomination is a 3 step process that is very open to the editor making various mistakes. To then use these as gotcha grounds to not assume good faith is against the guidelines of Wikipedia. I have 100% right to remove any post on my talk page I feel like. Some people remove every post on their talk page after they read it. There is no guideline that says anything needs to be left, let alone a sentance that calls the user "childish".John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yawn, keep playing the victim. I'm not the only one who thinks you're being disruptive.  PageantUpdater (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry for calling you childish, I should have kept that thought to myself. However I do wish you'd use a bit more consideration when AFD-ing.  Looks like that has slowed down which is appreciated.  PageantUpdater (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're worried about making mistakes when AfDing,, either a) use Twinkle to AfD, or b) quit AfDing entirely. p  b  p  02:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Flooding of the ANI
It looks like our dear, dear friend Johnpacklambert is attempting to flood the ANI with meaningless, repetitive comments, perhaps in an attempt to obscure comments critical of him and make the ANI WP:TLDR. This is a disruptive tactic he's used in a lot of CfD discussions and more than a few AfDs. SMH. p b  p  15:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm frustrated more independent editors haven't weighed in as yet and the whole discussion is largely ignored but for a few comments. Also, I only just familiarised myself with some of JPL's earlier issues and do I detect a theme of being dismissive toward women in general? Jury out on that one. Anyway he doesn't need any more encouragement when we have editors voting in AFD that "hotties aren't inherently notable"... the outright inaccuracies in that nomination make me mad.  Uphill battle I'm afraid.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Going back after closure
User talk:MBisanz, User talk:SSTflyer. More importantly, please hep sourcing the articles in jeopardy. Google the name, go beyond the Facebook and twitter junk and add sources. Lots of sources. Source every point in the article if possible. Look for quality sources, major newspapers, TV coverage etc. And there are pageant news sources about just about all of them. Find something unique about them and run with it. Lots of sources wins the WP:GNG argument every time. Trackinfo (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been doing this with as many articles as I can reasonably keep up with - but as I pointed out in ANI I can't keep up with them all. State pageant season is starting and my own pageant website will be taking up more of my time but I'll do what I can.  I had already done what I could with Kelly George.  I'm trying to prioritise those with the best case for being kept.  Unfortunately it's an uphill battle with voters showing clear bias like "being a hottie is not notable"  (which makes me so mad I can't even begin...) --- PageantUpdater (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I have to again express disappointment that the ANI discussion is basically in limbo despite at least five editors (I think, there may be more) expressing the view that JPL's behaviour is unacceptable. Do you know how long these things usually take to get some sort of concrete outcome? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * JPL is a high edit count editor. If he has a habit of this kind of bad behavior, he probably has a guardian angel Administrator.  He won't even get a slap on the wrist. Trackinfo (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The other part of it is the combination of vitriol and sheer comment-flooding leads to TLDR ANIs that nobody wants to deal with.  or  I think one of you should add a subsection to the ANI proposing clear substantive and somewhat harsh as punishment.  I'd say he needs to be limited to 10 pageant AfDs a week, and be blocked if a) he nominates more than that, or b) he keeps half-assing nominations.  If you don't propose this, I will, but I hope you will back me up on this.  p  b  p  15:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done - smart thinking --- PageantUpdater (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Methinks we're seeing the "beauty pageants are beauty pageants so we're going to ignore GNG because none of these articles could ever possibly pass" squad out in force, right? Nothing irritates me more than people who weigh in without understanding what they're commenting on.  Well, maybe the only thing that irritates me more is someone claiming six separate pageants + 3 year long reigns is "one event".   --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Which AfDs in particular? My apologies, I didn't really follow them particularly closely yesterday, I was binge-watching Downton Abbey.  p  b  p  13:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Audra Mari (2nd nomination) - KECoffman of course, I don't think he's capable of anything but a delete vote and all trotting out the same illogical rationale. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that Coffman and Montana are defending JPL at the ANI as well. It's looking increasingly like the ANI will close as "we agree JPL screwed up, but we won't do anything about it"  p  b  p  13:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It closed with no consensus. As I expected, no consequence to JPL. Trackinfo (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Support
Please check User talk:Davey2010. Thank you for backing me up on the article but a "Me too" vote (just as we criticize the other side) doesn't get the job done. In the future, please use more and different words. Make it look like YOU put some thought into your response. It will carry more weight. I thought that article was fairly strong but it was almost obliterated. I got it resisted by forcing them to explain their decision. I still have to pound out more sources to make it stick. Trackinfo (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. In future, I'd strongly suggest filling out the complete references rather than leaving bare URLs.  Doesn't take much more time, especially when using visual editor.  To be honest I'm a bit over all of this right now, the ANI showed clearly the bias towards this topic, JPL didn't get so much as a slap on the wrist, I can't be bothered investing in this place with that sort of rot happening.  I'm still keeping a vague eye on what's happening but I won't be wasting the hours that I'd been putting in before.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'd also recommend you focus on the quality not quantity of references. My website and blogs aren't going to cut it as RS.  I've actually changed my vote to weak keep pending RFC based on the paucity of quality sources on Austin.  Indiscriminately voting to keep every article with the barest passing claim for notability doesn't do our cause any good.  For all KECoffman likes bleating about BIO1E/EVENT, this is probably the closest example of it. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miss United States Teen


The article Miss United States Teen has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Failed to meet WP:GNG. This is different from the popular Miss Teen USA. The article has not received SIGNIFICANT coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

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 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 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. Richie Campbell (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Samantha Casey for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Samantha Casey 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/Samantha Casey 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.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

JPL, again
I think it's pretty clear he's ignoring other's concerns about his editing (he just deleted your and other's concerns as "rubbish"). This is especially concerning because he's a volume editor. If he keeps up the mass deletion after being asked to stop by a lot of people many time, it looks like we're going to have to kick this up to a noticeboard if he keeps up this slapdash editing. p b  p  20:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And I'm not sure if Magnilia was having a go at me or not but let's face it, th was a guy has a reputation and I'm going to look into it when I see messages suggesting he's back to his old ways just with a new topic.  The mountain of speedy keeps & keeps is evidence in itself.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear to me that JPL doesn't quite understand how notability guidelines work, and is using personal opinions about topics as justification for deletion. p  b  p  21:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * we're back there again. Sigh.  Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  Watch him being patted on the head again and told it's OK to keep doing what he's doing in the face of it all.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness, he's not being patted on the head this time. p  b  p  22:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I should add lest I be accused of Wikihounding or some such that I spent half the night researching obscure basketball leagues and players that I'd never heard of, not all of his nominations received a Keep vote (there were one or two deletes in there) and I even stuffed up on my understanding of WP:NHOCKEY at one stage. But at least I tried? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

hockey afd
In regards to my comment here, when I reread the tone seems a little strong. Hopefully no offence.18abruce (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, not a problem at all. I'm just glad you pointed me in the direction of the sentence I was missing so I had the info going forward. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Gender
Hello, PageantUpdater! I noticed at the ANI discussion that you were offended that JPL referred to you as a guy, and you seemed to feel that everyone should realize you are a girl. I have a suggestion: Identify yourself as female so people will know. You could put one of the standard userboxes on your talk page, such as. Or you could go to your preferences and identify yourself as a "she". Once you identify yourself, you can have some expectation of being addressed the way you want. But otherwise, who knows? Your username doesn't give a clue, and we can't see you.

There are some people here who assume everyone is a guy. Not a lot we can do about them. But there are many others of us who avoid that stereotype, but need a clue from the person. Many of us use a simple tool where we hover over your name and it displays "male" or "female" - provided you have so identified. But you haven't, so if I hadn't seen your note at ANI, I would be referring to you as "they". Hey, there aren't that many of us females here, so I suggest you wear it proudly! --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha I definitely need to work on my userpage, thanks for the suggestion! I realised after the fact how useless it was for identifying me... but I had pointed out to JPL numerous times in past encounters that I am in fact female hence my annoyance... --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And I used to have a baby photo of mine and I just realised it got deleted... four years ago :P Shows how often I look at my user page! --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!
--Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Becki Ronen
Greetings—warning, kvetch alert. Where were u during Articles for deletion/Becki Ronen??? For the record, I am not a fan of pageants at all. The last I noticed was Vanessa Williams in 1984. And besides, I have trouble spelling the word. I invite u to inspect that "debate." It stunk upwind. The inuendo and sub rosa assumptions about pageant contestants were blatant. And please read my discussion with the administrative closer at his Talk page—I'm overly proud of my ability to be simultaneously hostile and just this side of incivility. And please note that he deleted shortly after I made a cogent plea to examine the debate. He does some good work elsewhere, but he ought to stay away from AfD closures. Had you put your oar in, things might have turned out differently. Regards Tapered (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Tapered, I watched the debate and your post-debate chat with the closer, I understand your feeling but I was in the midst of the JohnPackLambert ANI and to be honest I could only deal with one bit of drama at a time.  I did look for some sources and only found them relatively tangential - well at least compared to some who have been deleted before.  I can't really make heads nor tails of where the pageant AFDs are going because there's really been no common thread to follow as to what deserves to be kept and what doesn't.  So, with no real opinion either way, I chose to leave you all to it.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Paige Brooks
Please go by this article and see what is going on. Left you a note at afd about the book searches. The ISSISS person has but back the same junk two or three times now. I warned her against putting it back, the primary and unreliable sources citing WP:BRD and opened a discussion on the article tp. They did not discuss and changed the article back to the poor vetsion. I reverted the improper changes two times. I am done. Antonioatrylia (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for message and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was questioning your work re the book sources, I'd forgotten about the search feature and was genuinely curious. The editor is a problem (you can see why I went to ANI?)... I'll pick up a couple of reverts and consider reporting again if it gets out of hand.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:DD Investments titleholders
Template:DD Investments titleholders has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Deprod: Deanna Johnston
Hi, I have deprodded Deanna Johnston for procedural reasons, as the article was previously prodded and deprodded back in 2011 and therefore can't be prodded again. Feel free to take it to AfD. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

-

9/25/2017 Hello....you seem to be a big fan of American pageants......can you email me..got questions and information for you....thanks. Send a note to:  rsparksjensen@yahoo.com   Thanks, Robin

Nomination of Miss Alabama's Outstanding Teen for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miss Alabama's Outstanding Teen 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/Miss Alabama's Outstanding Teen 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.  DGG ( talk ) 09:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Premier Pageants titleholders
Template:Premier Pageants titleholders has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Miss Universe runners-up and finalists
Hi! I didn't add or remove anything in this page. I just edited flags of countries. There was no disruptive editing. Please do not reverte. Thank you so much ! User:Nguyenquochieu2107 (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC) your edits are disruptive as the article was correct per the manual of style and conventions of these pageant pages prior to your edits. You can't simply change them to however you want. If you think widespread changes need to be made bring this up at the appropriate wikiproject. A reminder also that you do not own articles --- PageantUpdater (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miss Alaska's Outstanding Teen


The article Miss Alaska's Outstanding Teen has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Miss America's Outstanding Teen"

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.  DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miss Arizona's Outstanding Teen


The article Miss Arizona's Outstanding Teen has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Miss America's Outstanding Teen"

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.  DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miss Alabama's Outstanding Teen


The article Miss Alabama's Outstanding Teen has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Miss America's Outstanding Teen"

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.  DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Miss Alabama Teen USA for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miss Alabama Teen USA 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/Miss Alabama Teen USA 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.  DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Alabama Teen USA. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Janel Bishop for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Janel Bishop 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/Janel Bishop 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. Legacypac (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miss Georgia's Outstanding Teen


The article Miss Georgia's Outstanding Teen has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Doesn't appear notable. See my comments on the talk page."

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. Largoplazo (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Miss Georgia's Outstanding Teen. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''When a person explains at length, with applicable details, that he has nominated a page for deletion for a lack of notability, do not accuse him of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's dismissive and rude, and demonstrates a failure to listen.'' Largoplazo (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your comments directed against me and your participation at pageant AfDs are both suboptimal. I have a broad area of editing interest and a good grasp of deletion policy. You appear to be narrowly interested in pageant fancruft. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand your intent is to split out parts of an article that has gotten large. But you should read where WP:Splitting says "Consideration must be given ... to notability of the offshoot topic ... before proposing a split. If one or more of the topics is not notable on its own, it may be more appropriate to simply remove the material from Wikipedia than to create a new article." So our attention to notability is appropriate. As for pointing out to me that there are references--yes, I had addressed them in my commentary in which I'd dismissed most of them as evidence of notability, so obviously I knew they were there. Largoplazo (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

In any event, I'm holding off on starting a discussion of the Georgia article now that I see the Washington article is already under review. Largoplazo (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Miss Georgia's Outstanding Teen for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miss Georgia's Outstanding Teen 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/Miss Georgia's Outstanding Teen 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. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Katee Doland for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Katee Doland 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/Katee Doland 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. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I would urge you to stop inserting unsourced info into pageant pages. Restoring deleted info without sources is not acceptable behavior. Legacypac (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miss Kentucky Teen USA


The article Miss Kentucky Teen USA has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No sources provided since 2014. Tagged as needing sources since Feb 2016"

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. Legacypac (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Miss Kentucky Teen USA for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miss Kentucky Teen USA 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/Miss Kentucky Teen USA 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. Legacypac (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miss North Dakota Teen USA


The article Miss North Dakota Teen USA has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Almost 12 years, numerous edits and not a single reference provided. This needs to go to draft until it is properly verified."

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. Legacypac (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miss New Mexico Teen USA


The article Miss New Mexico Teen USA has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "One off line referance is not enough for verification"

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. Legacypac (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Incivility
Hi PageantUpdater. Telling other editors to "fuck off" (1, 2) is incredibly inappropriate. Do it again and I'll block you from editing. Regards,  F ASTILY   00:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Another one and I'm not hounding, as explained further in that thread. Legacypac (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)