User talk:Esperant

I reserve the right to reply to comments left here either on this page, or on your talk page, as I see fit.

Sexual Morality and the Law
Hi Esperant. If you can, please keep an eye on Sexual Morality and the Law. The unreferenced material you removed back in 2012 was added again in 2013. I've just removed it. Interested in science (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Judith Miller (philosopher) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Judith Miller (philosopher) 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/Judith Miller (philosopher) 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. JMP EAX (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with unsourced content
I noticed a couple of your recent edits, such as |this one, that removed content you felt was unsourced or not supported by the source provided. I understand and agree with your desire to increase the accuracy and value of Wikipedia articles, and sources for this type of material are useful. However, your response seems a little cavalier. Take the statement about "laicite" in the Religion in Turkey article. I think whatever their religious viewpoint few people would dispute that Turkish "laiklik" has a lot of its origin in French "laicite". So the statement itself isn't controversial. Previously, the text didn't include a quotation (I added one now), so that specific reason for an inline source wasn't relevant. Now certainly the source cited didn't support the article's statement, and adding a correct source is an improvement. However, to delete uncontroversial article text because of a sourcing issue seems excessive. Am I missing something here? Rupert Clayton (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not missing something – rather I was. Specifically, in the context of the article I was looking at the 'laïcité' connection looked bogus, so I checked the cited source and it had nothing to do with the sentence it was after, so I went for delete. I agree that this was wrong inasmuch as the claim about laïcité was substantively correct, and I'd inferred wrongly that it was OR. So, apologies, thanks for reverting, and I'll try to be more circumspect in future. esperant 06:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I'd agree that if a source that doesn't support the statement in the article, it can be hard to know whether the article is unjustified, or the source inappropriate. I suspect a lot of editors come across this issue outside of their areas of specialist knowledge, and it's a tough call whether to be bold, be timid, or invest a lot of time in figuring out which is right. Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Red Digital Cinema Camera Company


The article Red Digital Cinema Camera Company has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable target of spammy wikilinks

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. Be..anyone (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of NSW Police


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on NSW Police requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Berek (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Blo.gs


The article Blo.gs has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * software / web article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, tagged for refs since 2014

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. Dialectric (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Angela Nagle


A tag has been placed on Angela Nagle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. ɯ ɐ ɔ 💬 03:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Communist Party of Aotearoa for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Communist Party of Aotearoa 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/Communist Party of Aotearoa& 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. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Largest economies" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Largest_economies&redirect=no Largest economies] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)