User talk:Gloriamarie

us department of education
Thanks for contributing the "establishment" section. It was the closest thing to what I was looking for, an idea how the US managed education compared to other countries, and how it managed education before creation of ED. 199.184.238.224 (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

David Souter
Nice job on the improvements to this article. I stumbled upon it and it's a much better read then I last remember it. :) Wizardman  14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Response Requested
I plan to delete the "Name Change" section of the "Steve Fossett" talk page, as it is not relevant to improving the article. As that section contains a comment from you, I would like to know if you have any objection to such deletion. If so, please post your objection in that section of the article's talk page. I will presume silence as consent. Thank you. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas
Thanks for the work. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yo. There's a cite error in the article for an abc news citation; I think you added those. Please fix that; I don't know how to work that stuff, which is why I just list the whole cite every time, heh. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That was put in by an IP address in this error, but I fixed it with no problem. Thanks for letting me know. I'll leave a note on the IP's talk page not to do that sort of stuff again.--Gloriamarie (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rehnquist
Whoa! Thanks for the work, but please give page numbers for all your citations. For example, page 509 for this: "While Rehnquist was often a lone dissenter in cases early on, his views would later often become the majority view of the Court." Please fix what you've added. Thanks. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to do that in the future (although it's not required in citations, it is helpful I'm sure), although Rehnquist's bio is only on one page in that book so it's easy to find that information.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for work on the Nixon article
Thank you

Just need a clarification
I am just wondering what the reasoning is for this edit []. Although I don't see problem right now, I was just wondering what the problem was with the way it was written and formatted before. Anyway, I'm suer there is a reason. Go ahead and leave your response here, since I am currently watching your page. Thanks--Jojhutton (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar by the way :) My reasoning for that is that those two paragraphs are general summary paragraphs about things that happened in both his first and second terms in office, so they didn't really belong under the First Term section. I figured that if we add a sentence or two about Vietnam, China and Watergate, we have some good summary paragraphs of his entire presidency. It's ok to move them back if you disagree, I just thought it didn't make sense to talk about second-term goings-on under the First Term section.--Gloriamarie (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats cool, I'm not disagreeing, I was just wondering. That makes sense. I didn't look it over too carefully, but where did you move the paragraphs? Did you create a new section? Finally, is there anything else that needs work before its nominated for GA again?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I moved them just up to the top section, "Presidency," which was already there but just had a picture of him receiving the oath of office on the family Bible. I don't think there are any huge issues with the article as it is, so we could see what the reviewer suggests and implement those when suggested. Was there a previous GA review? --Gloriamarie (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a previous GA review in August. See the top of the talk page for what the reviewer had to say. The article at that time was in horrible shape. It was no way ready for that type of review. I came in soon afterward and immediatly attempted to fix as much as I could. At that time though, there were only 49 citations. Now, in just three months time, there are over 120. Thanks to the efforts of User:ERcheck and yourself, this article is most like;y ready to go again.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just added a few things, about the Nixon Doctrine and his press conferences, and there are a few more things I can think that are important-- the 1972 election was a landslide that brought many other Republicans into office and is considered notable for that (one was Jesse Helms). I have a book which should have some information on that; I'll look into it and maybe come back and write something about that. Other than that, I think most subjects are pretty well covered. A few other things that could be worth delving into are his Supreme Court appointments, of which he had more than most presidents (why did he choose those people?), Rehnquist especially is an important one, and his pardon (a bit more on the controversy surrounding it and how Ford kind of suffered for that). There was also a controversy regarding his law school, Duke, which was going to rename itself after Nixon if he brought his presidential library there. It's a pretty liberal-leaning school, and the professors went crazy and revolted over that, so Duke didn't get the library. I'll try to find some more information on those subjects.--Gloriamarie (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The library information seems interesting. I would only suggest that it not be too long based on WP:Undue weight.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul
Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Milhous Nixon
As a recently involved editor to the Richard Milhous Nixon article I would like to inform you that I nominated the article for WP:GA. Lets cross our fingers and hope for the best. Sadly, a recent dispute on the Talk:Barack Obama page has spilled over to other articles on the presidents. The Nixon article has gone through a few changes, but I reverted the changes with the argument that any consensus reached on the Obama talk page is not binding on other pages. An editor has asked for a discussion. If you would like to join in, please do so at Talk:Richard Nixon.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:True.Story.of.Jesse.James.poster.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:True.Story.of.Jesse.James.poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. 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 escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Nixon edits
Hey there Gloria. Thanks for the work that you have done on the Nixon page. I'd just like to comment on some of your recent edits and my recent changes. As you have probably noticed, I have made some major alterations to the page, especially in the economy section and Vietnam War.


 * 1) First off, I don't know if it was you or someone else, but the article is choc full of wikilinks, many of which need to be removed because of overlinking. If I removed wikilinks, that's why.
 * 2) Lets go to the economy: I nixed Paul Krugman's assertion because of the wording. It seemed to discredit what some people think and present Krugman's assertions as fact. They may be, but it is not our job to decide that. I favor letting the reader decide. We can present the facts and maybe the reader will say "Hey, Nixon talked about supply side in 1960 and here he is raising taxes" or maybe the reader will say "He did the best thing for the times" -- we don't know. But we shouldn't state the opinion of a far-left newspaper columnist as fact.
 * Quote: "Federal Reserve chairman Arthur Burns encouraged Nixon to check the power held by labor unions, which had kept the rate of inflation high despite high unemployment; business owners kept prices high due to fear of wage increases." - This seemed a bit odd and random, and that's why I removed it. If we can incorporate it somewhere with proper context, then we will see.
 * I've taken many of the passages that had been previously written and reworded them, providing context and clarity, then repositioning the sentences. I haven't deleted or moved anything randomly.


 * 1) Regarding this, I put it in the Federal government initiatives section word-for-word. So it is now redundant.
 * 2) Regarding edits like these: I changed the way that the citations are on the page to make the page more like other political articles such as Margaret Thatcher. All the books are placed down below in the references section, and to refer to them, we write the author's name, date of publication, and page number(s) in this format: Frum, David (2000), p.X instead of the full citation. You can refer down to the references section to find the book. It may be a difficult concept to grasp, but I've found that it is better for the articles.
 * 3) Regarding Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers: I also did not see the significance of adding this to the article. Perhaps the Role of United States in the Vietnam War article could benefit from this? It says that the papers had nothing damaging against Nixon, but he sued not to have them released -- why? This is placed quite randomly.
 * 4) Regarding Civil Rights Quote:"Strategically, Nixon sought a middle way between the segregationist George C. Wallace and liberal Democrats, whose support of integration was alienating some Southern white Democrats." -- This was uncited. Quote: "...and enforced the law after the Supreme Court, in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education (1969), prohibited further delays." -- This was uncited. And then the book thing again.

Just so you know, I plan on going through the rest of the article and making other major changes. I like to think that I'm pretty experienced in this field; other FA articles that I've written or worked on substantially include Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan and Nixon's wife Pat. I don't mean to be boastful or condescending because I hope we can genuinely work together to make the article even better.

If you disagree with anything I said above, please let me know. Thanks for taking the time to read!

Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note! I understand now why you made the edits in question, and I agree with them perhaps with the exception of not mentioning the Pentagon Papers. He took the New York Times to the Supreme Court over them, which I think qualifies as an event worth mentioning. From what I read from the source I cited, he did it even though he wasn't personally implicated because Kissinger wanted him to protect the presidency in general (quite ironic in hindsight!) I hadn't noticed that the article was too full of wikilinks, and I don't believe I've added an excessive amount, sorry if I had. I don't think that was mentioned as an item in the GA review, but perhaps it was. I agree with Krugman on some of his statements regarding Nixon, and I think what he says in this instance is correct-- let me know if I'm wrong about that. Nixon did create a lot of government programs, which I've expanded a lot on since I started working on Nixon's article. I see what you mean about citing opinion vs. fact-- perhaps if there is someone who disagrees with Krugman, they could be cited as well. I thought that the template was pretty much the standard for citing books, but if there is a preferred way, I guess I don't have a problem with that. It's just new to me! The Southern Strategy is often cited as something that Nixon did- maybe we can find a source defining it, since that's basically the definition of it. I believe there's a separate Wikipedia article on it as well. Maybe fact tags could be used on these until a source is found- I think the Supreme Court case is cited by the same source as the desegregation from PBS, just not listed with a particular cite on that phrase. Those are just my thoughts, I'm glad you shared yours as well! Thanks for working on the article. It was pretty bad a few months ago when I first started working on it.--Gloriamarie (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My Baptism of Fire
Thank you for your kind welcome. I very much feel that my intervention on the discussion of Guilio Prisco's notability was a baptism of fire. I'll try and take it at a far more relaxed pace from here on in. PlanetNiles (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Arafat holster
Wow, thanks for adding that bit. We were discussing it on the talk page ages ago, but no one found a reliable source. Thanks for the ref! Cheers. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! I'm glad I could help.--Gloriamarie (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Frank Mankiewicz
I'm still unsure what the schooling of FM's children has to do with anything. Plenty of parents in DC supported (and still support) public education, integration, etc. while sending their children to private schools.

That the article is a stub and needs more info is also irrelevant: surely it needs important biographical information. For instance, FM's coining of the term "retronym," his work for Hill & Knowlton, etc.

What we have here looks very much like an attempt to inject POV: to bring up a minor detail intended to show that someone is/was a hypocrite. Never mind that even David Frum (Mr. NPOV himself, I'm sure!) doesn't show that FM sent his children to private schools to avoid busing. DC schools weren't that wonderful back then, with or without busing. And that's original research on my part, done when I was in grade school.

There must be hundreds of Wikipedia articles on people who raised their kids in DC in the 60s and 70s. How many of them discuss which school they sent them to, and for what reasons, and how that related to, or could be mentioned in connection with, their political views?

Please revert your revert.

Thanks RogerLustig (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are free to revert it if you feel that it's a POV addition. I'll make a note on the talk page.--Gloriamarie (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thomas
Because you have been a contributing editor to Clarence Thomas in the past, please comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Clarence_Thomas

RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Material you have added to the article is being challenged. I think you should comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clarence_Thomas and at the medcab page. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Maya Angelou
Gloriamarie, thank you for your recent work on this article. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it, since I'm pretty much the only editor who's worked on any MA-related article. This one needs so much work! I wanted to draw your attention to I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings; it's pretty close to getting submitted for FAC. If you could take a look at it, that would be great. It's already got some looks from a couple of editors familiar with the FAC-process, but another pair of eyes couldn't hurt. Again, thanks so much. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of B.J. Lawson
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article B.J. Lawson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Non notable person whose only claim to fame is that he ran for Congress and was unsuccessful. His campaign seems to have been a run of the mill affair without any real controversy. The article appears to have been written to support candidacy

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Albatross2147 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Education Improvement Tax Cut Act
A tag has been placed on Education Improvement Tax Cut Act, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Burzmali (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Bruges
Hay Gloriamarie, are you sure your source for the population of Bruges is correct? It sounds quite impossible to me there lived 200,000 people in Bruges in the 1800s. I'm pretty sure that number is wrong. Greets, Wikifalcon (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I had been wondering about the figure as well since it was so different from what was previously (uncited) on the page. The source is an 1896 textbook. It could be incorrect, but I've found several other sources that assert the same thing: The Chicago Tribune - Dec 30, 2001: "By one account, in the year 1500 Brugge had a population of 200000, making it twice the size of London, but its fortunes were soon to reverse. ..." The New York Times in 1928: "Its population, once more than 200000, is now 52894." Lonely Planet: "Bruges grew fat and by 1500 the population had ballooned to 200000, doubling that of London." --Gloriamarie (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

New harvest article
There was only 1 revision and not much content, so I'm just pasting it over here. Jay (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

New Harvest is a non-profit organization promoting research on the development of in vitro meat and other meat substitutes.

Research

Notes to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of David Pearce (philosopher) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Pearce (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/David Pearce (philosopher) (3rd nomination) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjmulder (talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=590455073 your edit] to David Pearce (philosopher) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * then known as the World Transhumanist Association, and is a prominent figure in the [transhumanism] movement, inspiring a strain of transhumanism based on paradise engineering and ending suffering.<

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=590614877 your edit] to Ariel Sharon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * *Operation Shoshana now known as the Qibya massacre

A brownie for you!

 * Hi, thanks again for updating/improving El Chapo's page. Just to let you know, I will be using your information to further organize the article. I think I'll be following a similar format to the one found on my sandbox so the article can flow chronologically when possible. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 18:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Revert
When an edit includes 2 things, as I added to Joaquín Guzmán Loera, and one of them needs to be changed, you don't need to revert it. You can simply make a good faith edit. Your revert also removed the category "Prisoners and deatinees of Mexico" that I added. Try to make good faith edits without being overly aggressive with the reverts. Thanks. Juneau Mike (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies - I didn't see the category addition. Thanks for your edit. - Gloriamarie (talk) 05:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joaquín Guzmán Loera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enrique Camarena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Big Trouble in Edith Piaf City
Many moons ago, seven years and more actually, you did wonderful reference work on the article Edit Piaf. Unfortunately, the most cited reference, a "Yahoo" article, no longer exists. It's listed as reference #1, with multiple other citations. If you know a good deal about her, and/or have access to good sources, and if you know/know of any of the other primary editors of Madame Piaf's page, it would be good to work on the article. At present it looks well documented but parts of it aren't.

With apologies to Meredith Wilson, Regards Tapered (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Robert P. McCulloch (prosecutor)
You were involved in this article. I invite you to a page move discussion. --George Ho (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WildintheCountryMoviePoster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:WildintheCountryMoviePoster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Newharvestnonprofitlogo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Newharvestnonprofitlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

April Fools? Nope! Welcome to the Women Scientists worldwide online edit-a-thon during Year of Science
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

David Pearce education
Hi, you introduced that David Pearce attended Brasenose College, Oxford with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Pearce_%28philosopher%29&type=revision&diff=227731157&oldid=227730168 Do you have a citation for this? Riceissa (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Braxton Lloyd for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Braxton Lloyd 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/Braxton Lloyd until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

List of YouTubers
There is another deletion discussion on List of YouTubers. If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion here. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

GAR for Ron Paul
Ron Paul, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. SecretName101 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Milw0rmcnn.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Milw0rmcnn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Gloriamarie/The Hedonistic Imperative
User:Gloriamarie/The Hedonistic Imperative, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gloriamarie/The Hedonistic Imperative and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Gloriamarie/The Hedonistic Imperative during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)