User talk:Karada/Archive 3

Disambiguation link notification for March 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Combined Air Operations Centre Finderup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viborg. 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) 08:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fakir Musafar


The article Fakir Musafar has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Appears to be non-notable; very poorly cited.

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. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hickies


A tag has been placed on Hickies, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "Click here to 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. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 13:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, false alarm. The page had been overwritten by yet another spammer. I restored the redirect that was previously there. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 13:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Julia Parton for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Julia Parton 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/Julia Parton 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. Spartaz Humbug! 00:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Ashley Renee for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashley Renee 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/Ashley Renee & 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Jacklyn Lick for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jacklyn Lick 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/Jacklyn Lick 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of bondage models by decade for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of bondage models by decade 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/List of bondage models by decade (2nd 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. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Nomination of Diagnostic test for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diagnostic test 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/Diagnostic test 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.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  17:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

AfD: Ass Worship
AfD is located here: Articles for deletion/Asa Akira Is Insatiable. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Pain and pleasure for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pain and pleasure 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/Pain and pleasure 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. The Anome (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft's proprietary code page extensions listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Microsoft&. Since you had some involvement with the Microsoft's proprietary code page extensions redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Extraterrestrial articles missing geocoordinate data has been nominated for discussion
Category:Extraterrestrial articles missing geocoordinate data, 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. KMF (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Asymmetric cut


The article Asymmetric cut has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "This article appears to be original research."

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. Rhadow (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Parturition listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Parturition. Since you had some involvement with the Parturition redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of pornographic subgenres for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of pornographic subgenres 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/List of pornographic subgenres 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.Guilherme Burn (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Hogtied model in ball gag.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hogtied model in ball gag.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Parturition listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Parturition. Since you had some involvement with the Parturition redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Francis E. Dec for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Francis E. Dec 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/Francis E. Dec& 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. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 04:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Renaming of category
Please see my proposal to rename several categories including Category:Florida infrastructure to Category:Infrastructure in Florida Hugo999 (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of The Cook's Decameron for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Cook's Decameron 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/The Cook's Decameron 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.  Sandstein  16:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Sex Genes
I'll try to be more clear about my comments. I am stipulating that humans have genetic information promoting sexual reproduction (if this is in question, please address that). No one has located the genes on the human genome, so I must leave it as a general term "sex genes," and not specify specific genes. These genes directly encourage, by evolutionary design, reproduction of the species. Thus, a human's desire for sex is derived from its genetic instructions to reproduce. If you can enlighten further on this subject, I would be grateful.


 * I think you're begging several different questions here. -- Karada 4 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page and experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Thanks for the welcome! I have a fuzzy feeling this wikistuff is rather addictive ;-). So far I am browsing around in English and German areas I know a bit about (history of Europe, of Christianity, Switzerland in general) and do some edits (found the editing help already, and my main problem is, pressing save only after everything is cleaned up ;-) But I'm getting a bit routine already.

Cheers!


 * I'm glad you are having fun! Wikipedia is addicting. --mav

Hi. I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate your contributions and your professionalism in the sex-related articles. -- Stephen Gilbert 16:21 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Karada, are you sure that the material found at http://roland.lerc.nasa.gov/~dglover/dictionary/content.html is public domain material? -- looxix 00:05 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)


 * The dictionary itself should be; http://roland.lerc.nasa.gov/~dglover/dictionary/firsted.html appears to indicate that the contributors and editors appear to be Federal Government employees, and most of the sources are Federal Government sources. (Note that the links at the bottom of the page you cited are not part of the dictionary, and clearly labelled as such - I'm referring only to the dictionary itself).


 * It also states that non-public-domain documents have also been used as references, but the entries are "based on" these, rather than copied from them. They say:


 * They are not in the same form as the sources; most are abridged; the terms used in the definition may not be defined in this Dictionary precisely as they are defined in the applicable standard; and, most important they are not referenceable to a specific, dated publication of a standards issuing organization. 


 * So, essentially, I'm trusting in the wide range of multiple sources, stages of editing, and NASA's own integrity not to have copied other copyrighted works directly. Karada 09:02 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply on my talk page regarding the NASA dictionary -- please let me know if this is OK for the public domain criteria -- otherwise, the entries from there will have to be paraphrased/rewritten. Karada 09:07 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I've just asked because it seems to be an usefull source of information but there is no explicit mention that it is PD. -- looxix 22:20 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Note re the previous: the entries in question with information from the NASA dictionary are:
 * diffuse sky radiation
 * Mie scattering
 * Rayleigh scattering
 * Ballistics
 * ... and a bit of text inserted into scattering

Karada

Hi, what's the point of, as you write, "restoring previous edits" of the Social role of hair article? If, as it says at the bottom, this is supposed to be a stub, removing a link to beard -- rather than creating new links -- does not appear to be particularly helpful. --KF 22:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

It should be there under "facial hair in Islam," -- if I have removed your link when merging my re-arrangement of order and addition of subheadings, it was a mistake, not a deliberate move. Karada 22:02 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I can see that now. Sorry for making such a fuss. By the way, this is an interesting idea for an article, and I can feel that it'll be a good one. All the best, KF 22:48 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

What is the end-to-end principle? your article just talks about the implications without defining it LittleDan 00:06 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Karada. I notice that you blanked Antitussive. Was there a reason for that? If you want it deleted, you should list it on Votes for deletion. If you do, it might be deleted properly, or it might be rescued by someone who is willing to write about the subject. If you don't list it, we'll just end up with a blank page sitting in the article space indefinitely, which is not good. -- Oliver P. 06:26 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi Karada,

thanks for your (re-)contribution to pubic hair article. I have much elaborated on the first sentence in the next section (full list of reasons). The porn star line I've moved to the "talk" page - The sentence sounds like that only porn stars shave and that does normal shaving people give the incorrect feeling of them being pornstars. Please keep it in the talk.

Thanks.

Michael

Karada,

Thanks for the move in my West Nile virus contribution. I think there is some disconnect between the wikipedia naming convention and biological naming conventions, which got be confused Professor water 10:19, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

re: teledildonics
Let me say in my defence that I wasn't aware that teledildonics was vaporware, when I added the link to sex-toy. Well, read the wikipedia, and learn something new every five minutes. Anyway, big thanks to you for the work you have done for the whole general subject area of sexuality and it's variants. Kudos. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

&#35352;&#20107;&#12398;&#32032;&#26228;&#12425;&#12375;&#12356;&#20181;&#20107;: "buru sera"&#12290;&#31169;&#12399;&#23436;&#20840;&#12394;&#35352;&#20107;&#12395;&#20516;&#12377;&#12427;&#21313;&#20998;&#12394;&#26448;&#26009;&#12364;&#12394;&#12356;&#12371;&#12392;&#12434;&#21516;&#24847;&#12375;&#12394;&#12369;&#12428;&#12400;&#12394;&#12425;&#12394;&#12356;&#12290; - &#25140;&#30505sv 17:27, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't read Japanese. Could you translate that? Would you care to contribute on some of the Japanese sex-related topics? -- Karada 10:52, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi - since I assume you read it, I was wondering if you found mere addition paradox to be clear? Does it make sense? :-) Evercat 23:00, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's really clear. It's a shame about utilitarianism: it seems like such a good idea until you take a closer look. -- Karada 23:04, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Heh. I think I'm ultimately a utilitarian myself. :-) Evercat 23:04, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

- I am curious as to why you deleted three links from the John Money page and replaced them with one link that leads to nowhere. Money did not just talk about lovemaps. Patrick0Moran 00:00, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I didn't delete them: I wove them into a sentence. -- Karada 00:02, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry!

Patrick0Moran 02:56, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello Karada, You asked about diabetes mellitus article and my objections to its content. First, it is of patchy quality. There are passages or section that are quite acceptable and other that need major rewrite. Second, its style is inconsistent. Sometimes it uses scintific language and nomenclature and sometimes it is written in badly conceived "for patients" style. (I once proposed to make corresponding "Patient information" pages in this case "Patient information on Diabetes mellitus" linked to the scientific article Diabetes mellitus)

Data Management Wiki Committee
Thank you for your contribution to one, or more, articles that are now organized under Data management.

Because of your previous intrest, you are recieving an invitation to become a founding member of the Data Management Wiki Committee.

The members, of course, will form and solidify the purpose, rules, officers, etc. but my idea (to kick things off) is to establish a group of us who will take responsiblity to see that the ideas of Data management are promoted and well represented in Wikipedia articles.

If you are willing to join the committee, please go to Category_talk:Data_management and indicate your acceptance of this invitation by placing your three tilde characters in the list.

KeyStroke 01:12, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

Third, see sections Diabetes mellitus. Current standards - St Vincent declaration. Presentation is also lacking and diabetic ketoacidosis is insufficient. My ideal for a medical article would be a well researched, well referenced, scientific language, readable and state-of-the-art body of information. Kpjas 06:53, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think there was something in requested articles asking after ring gags, should there at least be an article there linking to ball gag? --Calieber 23:46, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Might I ask why you are removing "ideosyncratic" names in the List of sex positions? Vancouverguy 23:30, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Because they are taken verbatim from a website http://www.condoms.au.com/condom_frame2.htm -- these names appear to be unique to this website, and copies of it. So by keeping them, we (1) open ourselves to charges of plagiarism and copyright violation, (2) the names have no meaning to anyone else except in the context of this website. Have you ever heard anyone use the term "advanced Black Bee"? -- Karada 23:35, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm sure they were added for a reason. Mere names are not copyright violations.Vancouverguy

Consider this: if we were to replace the name "advanced Black Bee position" with the name "axaxas Mlo", and we would have replaced one silly name with another, with no gain or loss of comprehension by anyone, except in the context of a reference to this single cited website. The exact same positions turn up in a variety of other sex manuals, called by entirely different names. Unless other people can agree on names, they are meaningless, and a description is preferable to a name. -- Karada 23:42, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

On The Perfumed Garden: Wikipedia is not a source text depository. See What Wikipedia is not.Vancouverguy 00:13, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

OK, I'll move the Burton text to talk: my intention is only to have it there for later summarization / correction. -- Karada 00:14, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! Vancouverguy 00:15, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I made a slight adjustment to what you wrote on pre-established harmony to say mind instead of object. Is that right? I'm no expert on this... Evercat 22:48, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And I put another question on the talk page... Evercat

I noticed that you edited one of my articles by placing a colon at the beginning of each math line. What exactly does that do, formatting-wise? -Kevin


 * It just indents it a bit, like I have done with this paragraph here. It's purely a visual formatting convention, used in many Wikipedia articles on math. It's only a convention, you don't have to do it if you don't like it. But there is a general tendency to try to even out the style over articles in general... -- Karada 23:37, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the more leading colons, the more indentation. For more, read markup. -- Karada

Prelatures are properly erected, not "made" or "created". This is the expression used in Canonical documents, I guess it comes from "building up something", "putting it up" (latin obviously). For me it is also funny (or strange) why Cardinals are "created" (not made, curiously enough...). The act of erecting a prelature is called "erection" even though it may sound awfully. Thanks for leaving it. Pfortuny 11:02, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As for Escriva's page. I think such a short page is completely uninformative. On the other hand, only some critics have stated that (and all of the "supporters" have said that it is a perfectly healthy and holy use) and my opinion is that people come to bios in the wikipedia looking for facts, not other people's opinions (be they pro or contra does not matter). I am not going to fight for anything, I only want fair play. And you are aware that the current page is not fair. Least of all for the readers, who are the imporant ones. I am going to start working in another version as a subpage of mine and will ask (obviously) your opinion.

Is it too much to ask you to change what you have written into:
 * "His supporters think this is a fair and holy virtue (mortification), while .... (and here the critics).

Or (as myself) if you think both comments are out of place, take them away?

Thanks.Pfortuny 10:09, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have made the changes you requested. The comments should be kept. I think Escriva's love of the lash is a crucial part of his personality, and informs the rest of his works, as well as being an important source of criticism. -- Karada 11:57, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks!
 * Anyway, I think we agree that the present page is quite a stub. I am planning a new rewrite and will inform you before acting.
 * I have grep'd his complete works. Here you go ("dolo" has a space bc there are quite a few words in Spanish with "dolo" inside). Notice that I have used only "prefixes" for words dealing with pain (so that "mortificacion, mortificarse, mortificado"... as well as "dolor, doler, dolido, doloroso") whereas I have made a true grep for "oración", etc... I do not think you may honestly say that the "lash" ""informs"" his works. It may appear assiduously, frequently. But in true honesty, there are quite a lot of different subjects:

bash-2.05b$ zgrep -i " dol" *|wc -l /* (pain) dolor, doler... */    200 bash-2.05b$ zgrep -i "mortif" *|wc -l /* (mortification) mortificarse, mortificacion, mortificado */ 118 bash-2.05b$ zgrep -i "enfer" *|wc -l /* (sickness) enfermedad, enfermo, enfermar */ 86 bash-2.05b$ zgrep "sufr" *|wc -l /* (suffering) sufrimiento, sufrir, sufro, sufres... */    144 bash-2.05b$ zgrep "discipl" *|wc -l /* (disciplines, lash) disciplina(s), disciplinado */ 17 bash-2.05b$ zgrep "oración" *|wc -l 401 bash-2.05b$ zgrep "trabajo" *|wc -l 354 bash-2.05b$ zgrep "apostolado" *|wc -l 222 bash-2.05b$ zgrep -i "cristo" *|wc -l /* just one of the ways to call Jesus Christ */ 1247 bash-2.05b$ cat * | wc -l /* total nbr. of lines */ 3175


 * But of course, this is not definitive and I am not a philologist.
 * Sorry for the long answer.

Conditional reflexes
Hi Karada - I see you changed "conditional reflex" to "conditioned reflex" in the note about Pavlov in the article on reflex. This is an error and I have changed it back again. The phrase "conditioned reflex" arose only as an error in translation from Russian: what Pavlov thought he was doing was establishing reflexes conditional upon previous experience. Of course history knew better, but the article was talking about what Pavlov intended, not how he was misinterpreted. seglea 00:44, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Please can you put that in the Pavlov article, if possible. -- Karada 00:45, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I've put it into Pavlov, and rounded that out considerably. I'll have a look at operant conditioning as soon as I can (though by the time that phrase came into use, the verb "to condition" was irreversibly established in the minds of psychologists).  seglea 01:08, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, the term "to condition" is used by engineers to mean "to put something into a given condition" -- such as in the phrase "line conditioning". -- Karada 01:19, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Pre-eclampsia
Hi, I've asked you a question on Talk:Pre-eclampsia. -- Timwi 20:16, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi. The article Mother I'd Like to Fuck has been listed on Votes for Deletion. Though the phrase is hardly scientific, I thought the phenomenon of attraction to older women could benefit from your knowledge. Is there a link that would be good for the article? Maybe you could put in a brief discussion? Thanks. Meelar 08:00, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Moving page
Please don't move pages w/o discussing. I've reverted both moves since I don't see the logic behind them. I've already explained at Talk:Communist Party USA why it belong there and not under the longer title. If you don't agree, go there and explain. Same for the other article... --Jiang 02:16, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Some comments which were previously posted to my user page
No problem Karada, great work in tracking down that URL btw. I'll make an effort to research more about the sex toy history and write some original material. - user:cool_blade!

Helpful guy - 'Sez user:F1lby!'

????????????Ping 09:11 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

Concentrators as described in the article do not exist (in the US at least), and there is certainly not one for every two houses in a neighborhood. There are SLC's and DLC's and a few other devices designed for "pair gain", but they multiplex several hundred lines onto fiber (or possibly copper if they're real old). They do not fit the description of 'concentrators' in the article. I will write a better description soon. "concentrators" aren't the only way to connect to the switch either, that's why the switch has bays and bays of line cards - User:Hoho(formerly 24.210.222.139)


 * It varies so much from one carrier to the next. I've seen switches with drawers and drawers of line cards, all cross connected to an old-time main frame with cables taking the copper pairs out into town.  Not unusual in a smaller town with little growth, especially if there is another carrier serving the surrounding rural area.  On the other hand, there are carriers that don't have any subscriber lines coming to the switch.  They run T carrier or glass out to concentrators in the 'hoods and then there's just a short run of copper from the concentrator to the subscriber.  Some more advanced carriers, even in smaller towns, have a two-tier network with a fiber ring serving muxes placed a few miles apart, and then concentrators off T carrier from the muxes in the 'hoods.  It just depends.  Then on the other hand I've seen 18 gauge copper in 15 mile runs to provide rural service without the use of line extenders.  It's a wide world out there and all offices aren't engineered the same.  UninvitedCompany 02:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Look, I don't know who contacted you or who you are, but if you are referring to the "Anarchism" dispute, I can assure you, I am not the one who needs an education in NPOV. See Talk:Anarchism. Spleeman

anal sex/female ejaculation
Good work tidying up! If it wasn't for people like you, people like me would leave the wiki a mess ;) Cheers, Sam Spade 14:22, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good edit on moving the link to sexual objectification from the Sex Industry, I was unsatisfied with that link. Thank you. Did you also fix the equivalent link from the Feminism page?

Camipco 16:45, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions?
Hi, I was writing an article on Jack Ryan (Senate candidate) and realized that Wikipedia has no article on sex club (a term used in Ryan's divorce files--it's a long story). Anyway, I wasn't sure if there was an existing article this could redirect to, or another term, but thought you might know. If not, no big deal. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Neutrality" is NOT neutral
He keeps deleting ON A WHOLESALE BASIS, large amounts of FACTUAL material about Kerry!

Rex071404 01:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please see NPOV. Except in uncontentious cases, Wikipedia does reports opinions, not facts. Put crudely, this means saying "X said this, Y said that, Z says this with evidence A". We have been working quite hard to keep simple slurs out of political articles -- please attribute your material, and provide a cite to a reliable source or sources, and you will have far fewer problems. -- Karada 21:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kegel exerciser
Hi Karada,

I don't know if you'de be interested in this, but my recent article on the 'Kegel exerciser' was deleted (as it was deemed to be an advertisement). Does this kind of thing happen regularly ?

Regards,

Darren

Dlloyd 11:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

YACHAD
I'm looking for input on the situation with the YACHAD Germany articles. Please take a look at Talk:Yachad (Germany). --Smack 21:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Modifiying Recentchanges
When I see Recentchanges, I always remove any live link. In contrast, you add new links whenever you feel like doing so. For curiosity, what rule do you usually follow?? 66.245.86.226 15:00, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Any admin can add links, and use their own judgment about policy. I tend to get the new links from Requested articles, and choose them from that list according to my own tastes. Usually, I try to keep the set of links reasonably balanced between arts and sciences, and tend not to add another obscure reference if there are several there already; or, if there are no obscure references, I will tend to add one. -- Karada 15:06, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Encyclopedia" links on talk pages
I'm not sure Google would approve of what you are doing on various talk pages.
 * Google has no opinion on links other people make. They neither approve nor disapprove. There's no need to worry about this.

We disapprove of this kind of behavior when others promote their products, we should do the same for attempted promotion of Wikipedia.
 * "We" disapprove of links to commercial sites, but Wikipedia is not a commercial site. If someone has a non-commercial, informative site about (for example) chess, and links to it from Wikipedia's chess article, it's not a problem. Why would Wikipedia disapprove of links to Wikipedia? Besides this, there is a link to the Wikipedia main page on every page, at the top-right corner. If this isn't a problem, why would a separate link be a problem? I guess I don't understand your objection here.

Your efforts are likely to get us penalized as a link-farming site: many copies of near-similar text (i.e. Wikipedia mirror sites) all linking to the same page.
 * Who do you think might "penalize" Wikipedia, and why do you think it's a realistic possibility? When any mirror site (or commercial site that uses Wikipedia's content) copies any external link from us, it would be what you're calling a link-farm: "many copies of near-similar text. . . all linking to the same page." This happens with every external (or internal) link we have, but it's not a reason not to use links. And no one is penalizing us for it. So again, I don't see the problem here.

Please let natural processes promote Wikipedia instead. -- Karada 23:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, the natural process isn't working. If you look up (for example) "Ziad Jarrah" in Google, you get four commercial "mirrors" showing Wikipedia's info (though outdated) before you get to Wikipedia's (superior) article. This is a problem, and the reason it happens is that these commercial sites use strategic linking better than we do. That's what I'm hoping to try to fix. Yours, Quadell (talk) 13:29, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship
I have nominated you for adminship. Please accept at WP:RFA. uc 19:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Turner syndrome
I thought wik policy was to just capitalize the first letter of a multiple word term if all the words are not usually capitalized. The ordinary usage in all medical books is Turner syndrome (not Turner Syndrome), Down syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, etc. There is some variation over possessive apostrophes but not over capitalizaton. Could you undo your shifts please? You don't intend to change every other syndrome article we have, do you? thanks Alteripse 00:52, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, will do. -- Karada 00:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That should be the lot done, including a couple I found but did not create. -- Karada 01:01, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! - Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you! -- Karada 10:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hubbert curve

 * The Hubbert curve closely resembles the shape of, but is different from, the probability density function of the normal distribution. However, it is not a statistical distribution, and

"... not a statistical distribution" is vague, but if you meant that it is not the probability density function of any probability distribution, that is flat-out wrong. And "nothing to do with statistics" seems rash, to say the least. Michael Hardy 00:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gags
You wrote: ''Hello, Anthony. I've noticed that you have edited two parallel articles, gag and gag (BDSM).'' ....

I split the matter into these two files so that someone wanting information about ordinary gags, either as non-sexual restraint gear or as tools, would be spared having to wade through a quantity of very graphic and (to me) rather disturbing description of sadomasochistic `bondage', unless he specifically clicks on a link pointing to the BDSM matter.

I will look again at Gag to see if I can remove the remaining BDSM-ism from the non-sexual [Gag]] page.

Anthony, my concern is this: gags are/were only generally used in three contexts:
 * by consensual sadomasochists, who care about safety, and
 * by criminals and other human rights abusers, who generally don't care about the health or safety of their victims
 * for example, in the now thankfully extinct punishment known as the scold's bridle.
 * as specialized devices for oral surgery

I cannot think of any legitimate reason to gag anyone, ever, without their consent.

I actually find the use of gags for criminal abuse far more disturbing than the use in consensual BDSM, as BDSM practitioners generally take great care to avoid harm to one another. -- Karada 17:19, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be starting to lead to this question :: Do we remove from Wikipedia all matter that could help people to commit illegal acts? Anthony Appleyard 17:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's the point. Following this logic, would mean that we should not have articles on fire, knives, or acids, to name but three. However, in eithere a non-BDSM context, or in a BDSM context, I'd think that the most important information relates to the health and safety aspect of gags; that contrary to the image given by damsel-in-distress movies, a gag is generally either ineffective at preventing speech or potentially lethal, with quite a lot of overlap in the middle where gags can be both.
 * Here's how I'd structure the article:
 * Here's how I'd structure the article:


 * dictionary definition of a gag
 * health and safety risks (for example, death by inhalation of vomit, asphyxia from a mere head cold)
 * the stuff I just said above
 * having said that, explain specialist medical and sexual uses in detail


 * -- Karada 17:35, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

User:Ríck K
Thanks for the heads up. What damage did they do? RickK 20:30, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * They set up the account, copied your user and talk pages, announced on Vandalism in Progress (as you) that they were leaving, but going to go out in a blaze of glory, invited everyone to revert all the changes they (i.e. you) had ever made, then went on a high-speed page-move rampage; but they were quickly caught and blocked after about 20 to 30 pages moved, and the mess was then mopped up by volunteers. No permanent damage was done. -- Karada 20:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism
The behaviour of Critzu in article History of Bulgaria can be described only as vandalism, why don't you threaten him with banning? VMORO
 * Because your and his previous behavior was -- until then -- best described as a heated editing dispute, with both sides acting in what they considered to be good faith. You raised the threat of deliberate vandalism, so I stepped in. Why don't you have both the transliterated Bulgarian names (with original Cyrillic, if appropriate) and their Anglicised versions afterwards? That way, everyone would be happy. Similar compromises have been found for articles where the English version of a name is not the same as the original. -- Karada 17:43, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ummm, I have no idea.
Evening, Karada. I got an e-mail from User:Bucephalus saying that you had blocked him and that he was innocent. He was asking for my help in unblocking. I went through the block log, and I didn't see that you had banned that user, but you had banned an IP. Could this be an AOL range problem, or did the user committ a bannable offense? I don't really know the user, so I have no personal stake in the matter, but, as he asked me (and I don't know why), I thought I'd ask you. Geogre 21:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't remember having banned any user by that name. I have performed several recent IP bans, all for quite obvious vandalism. None were in AOL space. Bucephalus may share a proxy or dynamic IP with one of the banned IPs. What ISP does Bucephalus use, and what was the message they got from the ban? -- Karada 23:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is what he wrote me: "I am logged in. When I try and edit a page it just brings up a page with:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Karada.

I don't share an IP address and I received no warning about being banned. I only started with this whole wiki thing a few weeks ago. Is this how it works? The block log lists me as 62.253.64.12"

I couldn't find anything he'd done, but that doesn't mean he didn't. Geogre 13:41, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Backing up your claim of NPOV
Hello Karada,
 * On 10:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC), you made the claim that the article Unibrow had NPOV problems, indeed it had NOV problems. These problems have been resolved, but the original arther who made the PROV edit has argued that his comment are not a PROV but fact. I have done my best to back your claim, but it would be appropriate that you voice your view point on this matter also. We would highly apprechate it if you would give us your opinions on talk:unibrow.
 * Fellow Wikipedian,
 * Joel M. 18:22, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am the editor who made the original claims that Joel M. refers to. I would also like to hear your input on the matter, as it appears you have the respect of other Wikipedians as someone who contributes in a mature and neutral way to controversial topics.  I would especially like to know if it is my edits you were refering to when you said there was a POV problem.  Thanks. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 05:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rape
I am glad to have more participants in the debate on illustrating the Rape article, but I am disappointed that you chose to restrict your contribution to removing the image. Your contention is not supported by the discussion on the talk page. Regards, Haiduc 15:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox
It's my understanding that the Sandbox is free from most rules, only being bound by leaving the header in and whatever's mentioned in the header. --SPUI (talk) 16:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of people believed to have bipolar disorder
Thanks for your comment on my comment. As a fellow bipolar Wikipedian, I agree in the strongest sense that there is NOTHING to be ashamed about regarding having BPD. I'm never afraid to let people know that I have it; my whole family knows, as do all of my friends, including online-only ones. That being said, the reason I dislike the list is twofold. Firstly, when I posted my original comment and added the "this article is not neutral" template, the list was unsubstantiated; it was not in its current format of listing only people who are deceased. The same, I believe, is true for when I voted on VfD. I don't believe that BPD is shameful; what IS shameful is an unsubstantiated list of people who may or may not have BPD. If the list had been substantiated, I don't think I'd have had a problem with it. But, no, I NEVER thought that bipolar disorder itself is shameful... if I came across that way, I apologize. DocSigma 04:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calcutta -> Kolkata name change
Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 13:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

appearance of double edits
Oh yeah I've seen that happen before. -Christiaan 23:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for adding my British Union of Fascists NPOV changes to the Great editing in progress page. Nice to know I did something useful... Rayray 09:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How do I reply to your message?
Hi-

I got a message from you regarding the article on Bukkake but I don't know how to reply except through your talk page. In looking at the history, I see that some people have voted in favor of adding the link. Also, even though I have raised several relevant issues relating to including it on the Bukkake;Talk page, no one has addressed my concerns.

I have reviewed the information on including links in wikipedia and based upon the criteria outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

It seems like Bukkake.com should be included as an external link on this page.

So far NO ONE has addressed my concerns or given a valid reason (according to wikipedia rules) NOT to include the site. I am not just going to go away. Bukkake.com deserves to be there. I am cool with a content warning, but if you are going to have a "community" page about bukkake, Bukkake.com deserves to be listed there. I have looked through wikipedia and there are many external links on many pages. Most of them are LESS appropriate for the page than Bukkake.com is on this page. Personally, I am starting to wonder why so many people seem to have such a strong interest in this one wikipedia page but so little interest in establishing a dialogue with me.

I've added comments to several people's talk pages and the only response (except for yours) I got was from someone who threatened to rip off my site's content and add it to wikipedia?!?! WTF?

My intent is NOT to spam wikipedia. I am talking about adding ONE LINK to ONE PAGE out of the millions on here in the ONE PLACE where it makes sense. What is the problem? According to wikipedia guidelines, Bukkake.com should be included.


 * Well, you just did reply to me. You can converse with me on this page. I don't think anyone threatened to "rip off" your site, I think they just offered you the chance to donate content from your site to Wikipedia licenced under the GNU Free Documentation Licence. I think one of the things most objected to is that you are adding a link to your own site. This is generally frowned on, in much the same way as adding an autobiographical article to Wikipedia. When the site is an advertising-driven site, the disapproval is even stronger. I'm well aware of the high Google page-rank of Wikipedia pages (the Wikipedia Bukkake article is currently #6 on a Google search for "bukkake"), and hence their potential for driving traffic to linked sites. Since we currently get over 80 million hits/day, the temptation to monetize Wikipedia links is high. We tend to resist this by being rather critical about link submission criteria, and in particular, linking your own site. Why not work on making your site more encyclopedia-like and less porno-site like? If you do that, it is more likely that sooner or later, someone will notice your site's quality and link to it. -- Karada 13:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your responding rather than just reversing my edits, Karada :-)

I hear what you are saying, but what I am saying is that it shouldn't matter whether it's my site. What is important is that it is the right link for this particular page. If I were adding a link to bukkake.com on the page for "orgy", it would be spamming. But adding a link to bukkake.com on the page for the article "bukkake" MAKES SENSE.

The designer of wikipedia added the capability to include external links for just this type of situation. Because there are some cases where all of the information is not in wikipedia. If someone has found the wiki article for "bukkake" and they want to find out more about the topic, what is the next best step? (Keep in mind that bukkake is a topic that has adult connotations.)

Bukkake.com is a better choice than any of the other links currently on the wiki page.

Wikipedia should not be about censorship or about individual reviewers' personal preferences. It should be about providing the best information. When I look through the history for the wiki:bukkake page I see people both in favor of keeping and removing the link.

Your thoughts?

ADDED:

You have made some interesting edits to this page Karada: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erotic_sexual_denial&action=history

Many external links added.


 * Not by me. /A check of the history shows that, even though I created the first version of the article, those links were added by User:FT2. If you are referring to my edit, you'll notice that I merely reformatted that subsection into standard format, sight unseen. I do not endorse any of those links. -- 14:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

Yes, you started that article. The external links do not seem to be relevant to the topic of that article, but no one feels compelled to remove them. I have been looking around wikipedia and there are quite a few articles with many external links like that...

I see that there are external links on that page with text like "Classic Website" etc. Would that kind of wording satisfy your concerns about the external link to Bukkake.com? Maybe something like this:


 * http://www bukkake.com Bukkake.Com Classic Bukkake Website Warning: Contains adult content.

on the bukkake wiki page?

Please advise.

ADDED:

Yes, I have been doing some more looking around. Many external links to hardcore porn added by FT2 and Anome also.

Fecal incontinence
'rm what seems to be a plug' (20 March)

Eeeuuw. (was that the intention?) Redlentil 19:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zurich
Zürich has been nominated on Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 09:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Link Vandal
I came across your comments on User_talk:218.19.66.117. This person has been responsible for repeated vandalism on money-related pages, notably finance. He has several different IPs, but recently registered as User:Deli. I added him to the wiki current vandal page. Is there anything else that can be done to block him? Feco 17:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protection
Thanks! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BDSM-stub
Hi - Over at WikiProject Stub sorting have just found out about your new stub creation (you added it at our "stub types" page (WP:WSS/ST). At the top of that page is a notice saying To avoid unnecessary redirects and reverts, please discuss all new stubs at WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria prior to creation of new stubs and placement in articles or tables. This is standard practice for creating new stub templates, since the new templates should not only fit into stub hierarchies, but they should be useful to editors. For that reason there is always a week or more of discussion related to whether there are currently the required 60-100 or more stubs which will fit the category, whether the stub articles are currently covered by a sparsely populated category, and the like. With this new template, although I can see a reason for it being created, it is covered very well by sex-stub, which currently contains fewer than 200 articles - well below the limit at which splits are normally made. I've added the new template to the list at WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria... if you'd like to comment on the reasons for the stubs creation there, we'd be pleased to hear from you! Grutness...  wha?  12:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah. I didn't spot the notice. Thanks. -- Karada 13:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Helicoid
I see you've encountered Helicoid. I don't know how to proceed with him, because he's engaging in trolling behaviour, personal attacks, violation of the NPOV policy, rejection of the concept of peer review, and a whole host of other things. Seeing as you just came upon it, what is your view? -- Natalinasmpf 23:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if he goes on escalating in this way, he's likely to get banned by an admin. However, I must recuse myself from doing it, because I'm involved in editing the article, and by extension, in the controversy.


 * If he just treads water, a Request for Comments might be appropriate. If he really won't stop being abusive, shout for an admin, and one will generally magically appear. If not, let me know, and I'll see how I can help. -- Karada 23:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand academics has been nominated for deletion
Category:New Zealand academics has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Rathfelder (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

"Blended Networking" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Blended Networking and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"Online social networking" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Online social networking and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipedi:Tarafs%C4%B1z_bak%C4%B1%C5%9F_a%C3%A7%C4%B1s%C4%B1#B%C4%B1rak%C4%B1n_olgular_kendini_ifade_etsin i saw you there modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 20:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lady Heather


The article Lady Heather has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The article primarily uses primary sources and reviews of the series in general, a quick Google search doesn't give sources that prove the character's notability."

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. Spinixster  (chat!)  08:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Lady Heather for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lady Heather 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/Lady Heather 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 until the discussion has finished. Spinixster  (chat!)  01:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Florentine flogging for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Florentine flogging 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/Florentine flogging 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 until the discussion has finished. UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)