User talk:Peregrine Fisher

DYK nomination of Home for Christmas (TV series)
Hello! Your submission of Home for Christmas (TV series) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Achaea (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Game articles
I was thinking that working on some of those iconic game articles I mentioned previously may be a bit daunting, but if you are interested, there may be an easier way to get your feet wet – I just added several Origins Award-winning RPG adventure/sourcebook stubs under "Expand" on Template:RPGBox contents that could use some love. :) Check it out!  I have been busy, those are just the tip of the iceberg.  ;)  BOZ (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a DnD wild hair is going to bite me soon. I'd like to write a notable article on "Red Dragon" or "Gold Dragon" or similar, if I could find the sources.  Actually, what do you think are the most likely to be notable DnD monsters?  I see demigorgan has already been merged. hmmm.


 * I wrote this for the hell of it Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to remind myself. Demon type XVII, or whatever was a Balrog. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I started This and its talk page as a response to the slew of D&D AFDs we have been experiencing for the last few months. If you want to try resurrecting any of those, or any other redirected article, find your sources and let me know so I can restore it for you. You might be thinking of our good buddy Balor, who could use more sources before Sauron's evil eye turns his way? BOZ (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

If ever an interest should spark again... :) BOZ (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Peregrine Fisher, if you are just taking a break after all the stuff that happened earlier this month, and feel like giving the Wikipedia another try, I for one would be delighted. Less controversial areas can be less stressful (yeah, I know, deletionists, but you can avoid them) so maybe you would be interested in helping build articles on tabletop games? Not so much fictional elements, but RPGs, board games, supplements, and the like? I have started many small stubs just waiting to be developed, and there are many longer-existing articles which have never gotten properly sourced, and it would be great to see any of those built up into some quality content if the writing bug ever hits you again. :) BOZ (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping an eye on me! I'm not sure what I'm up to.  I still have alignment in my sights if I do something, but I haven't felt like doing anything lately.  We shall see. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fine, take whatever time you need. Just not 10 years. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As an additional / alternative idea, if you are interested, you could see if you can find any more sources to augment Draft:Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons) and Draft:Undead (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I check out Dicing with Dragons at the Internet Archive. Didn't have those two words though.  Pretty cool that it can be checked out and searched within. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, re:Signpost
Hi P. Fisher, I saw your note on The Signpost talk page and would need to see a draft of the article before I could say anything about it as editor-in-chief. Could you send me a link? The subject, as I take it, is roughly "everything that's wrong with Wikipedia". We get quite a few of these articles proposed and I should say that most of them don't work out - the subject is just too big! I'd suggest focusing on one or two related problems. The basic rules for talk pages apply to a Signpost article, so no personal attacks or anything like that. Original research is definitely allowed. We also follow the principles of journalism, so if you don't think you couldn't publish the material as an op-ed in a respected local newspaper, you probably can't publish it in The Signpost. And unlike most of Wikipedia, to be published in The Signpost, our project rules say that the piece must be approved by the editor-in-chief. If you want to publish it on your own talk page, of course, you are free to.

So, it's a fairly serious task to get something like this published in The Signpost, but I'd love to see it. I'll be direct if I think it needs improvement or I just can't use it. Good luck!

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I replied there. I'd like to read those articles about WP's problems that you didn't publish.  Too bad.  Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Avi Yemini moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Avi Yemini, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your page to draft space (with a prefix of  before the article title) where you can work on it with minimal disruption. When you feel that it meets our notability and neutrality requirements, and is thus ready for mainspace, please submit it using the Articles for Creation template on the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you copy stuff from another Wikipedia article, you must provide attribution; that's best done with a copied template on both the relevant talk-pages, but an edit summary is also sufficient (you can make a dummy edit to achieve that retroactively). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello
I wanted to say, thanks for your participation in the discussion at talk:race and intelligence, and I hope you'll stick around there. There is a need for more people who care about this article being edited in accordance with consensus and Wikipedia policy.

Also, I encourage you to read this discussion, which is about the changes that were originally made by Onetwothreeip and most recently restored by Volunteer Marek. Aside from my proposed change to the lead section, these changes are the article's largest current source of dispute.

These changes were first opposed by consensus on the article talk page, and when the justification for the changes was brought to the RS noticeboard, it was decisively opposed by consensus there as well. I would like some outside help or advice about this situation, in which the article is now being edited in a way that completely disregards the consensus that's been established on the article talk page and at at the noticeboard. You seem like an experienced editor, and this type of situation happens on the article somewhat often, so please mention it if you have any ideas about how it ought to be handled. 2600:1004:B16F:ED4F:AD6E:73F4:58C4:99 (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice
As I'm giving these alerts to others I felt I had to give one to you also. You might want to usu the new DSAWARE template, mine says  Doug Weller  talk 14:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Home for Christmas (TV series)
--valereee (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work, man. :) BOZ (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Imp (Dungeons & Dragons)


The article Imp (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG."

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. TTN (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Your post on AE
Hi there, I am not sure if you are aware, but your post to the Arbitration Enforcement page is on the project talk page. Did you mean to open a new case on the project page? If so it is here: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement‎ but you may need to give a bit more detail as to what the issue is. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed this post, as it's not formatted correctly. If you'd like to make a request for enforcement, please use the template you can find at the top of the page, as AE is not a general discussion board. If you would like to open a more general discussion of the issue, somewhere such as the incident noticeboard or dispute resolution noticeboard would be an appropriate venue. If you are requesting some enforcement action, please feel free to repost as a correctly formatted request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you please wait and see whether Volunteer Marek reverts against consensus again, before making a report about him? The article has just been locked in the stable version, so it's possible the situation is resolved now without having to file a report. 2600:1004:B11A:2404:D4DC:2D86:F016:1026 (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You reading replies here? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't normally, but after you made the post at AE that was removed, I decided to post in your user talk suggesting you wait before filing a report. And then I saw that someone else had already opened a discussion here, so I commented in this section instead of making a new section. 2600:1004:B14C:C919:E950:81A9:B8D8:510 (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I guess you have your reasons for not creating an account. Anyways, I don't know the history of the article like you, but I don't think Volunteer Marik is really the problem (could be wrong).  Seems like he did a little revert to test whether we really have consensus, and I'ts looking like maybe don't, if I'm the only one will to try and get the page to match the "consensus".  I feel like you and a few others agree with me, but maybe not in a boots on the ground kind of way. And apparently opening an arbcom thing requires a bunch of work.  I guess there's a template, and they probably want diffs and who know what else.  I've been rejected twice so far.  Maybe you could work on that if you don't want to edit the actual article?  Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * According to the banner at the top of WP:AE, only registered users can make reports there. I have a pretty good idea of how it's done, though, because I helped another user make a report against Grayfell last year. If things get to a point where a report is necessary, I can tell you what I know about how to do it.


 * I haven't been directly editing the race and intelligence article because for a long time, it was set so that only registered users can edit it. However, the article had a few edits yesterday from an IP user, so maybe that setting has changed recently. If others keep editing the article in a way that contradicts the outcome of the talk page discussions, I guess I can assist in dealing with that, but I still have a pretty strong aversion to that approach. When people edit the article in a way that disregards consensus on the talk page, there must be a better way to deal with it than by edit warring. 2600:1004:B14C:C919:E950:81A9:B8D8:510 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion about this sequence of edits: Do you think this constitutes canvassing? It doesn't seem like it could be appropriate to post the same thing in six different places. 2600:1004:B14C:C919:E950:81A9:B8D8:510 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It's canvassing to a certain degree, but I don't think it's that bad. Talking about the 8 to 4/5 split, if someone went and notified just the 8, or just the 4/5, that would be bad canvassing.  He may actually draw in editors who agree with the 8!


 * To put it bluntly, we probably need some edit warring to take to AE. Say I'm reverted by person A on Monday, and person B on Tuesday.  "Hey arbcom, everyone is reverting me!"  Arbcom will say "maybe your the problem and you shouldn't make edits that get reverted". Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking of possibly starting a talk page discussion asking whether other editors would support changing "blacks" to "black people", and "whites" to "white people". I've just looked at several sources taking both perspectives on this article's topic, and the words "blacks" and "whites" definitely are the most common terminology. But I also think this particular change matters less than the mass removal of sources, and we haven't yet had an in-depth discussion about which terms should be used. Before I start this discussion, there's one dilemma I need to ask you about.


 * Broadly speaking, the editors who prefer Onetwothreeip's version of the article are in the minority, but they're clearly the more active and determined group. I also think we already know that those editors support the change in terms. But in order for the proposal to truly achieve consensus, it also must have some support from the larger, but less active group of editors who supported restoring the stable version. Do you think for the purpose of this particular discussion, about whether some of the editors who supported restoring the stable version would nonetheless support the change in terms, it would be acceptable to ping just those 8 editors? Or would that still be inappropriate canvassing? 2600:1004:B11C:60B2:1C45:645C:CFE0:F8BA (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't do any selective pinging, especially as an IP. People would look askance.
 * Also, that's basically saying "fine, we'll let the 4 win, then see if they will discuss things reasonably". They wont.  If we can get the consensus version in place for a while, then the 4 will want to discuss everything. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus
Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus, 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/Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus 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. jps (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries
It would be helpful if you didn't copy/paste your entire post into the edit summary – it takes up a bunch of screen space unnecessarily. Just a few words that what you did is helpful, per WP:ES. Thanks. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 19:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

POV forks
You mentioned that being a POV fork is not a valid reason for deletion. I wanted to make sure you're aware of our WP:POVFORK guideline which states that it is an unacceptable type of content fork. We can certainly discuss whether or not Race and intelligence counts as a POV fork, but your assertion that this is not a valid deletion rationale runs counter to our guidelines and is unlikely to sway the outcome. –dlthewave ☎ 04:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll answer there. I could be in the wrong. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:BE
The editor making that comment is, per WP:QUACK, the same IP and location as an IP-hopper at Human genetic clustering, Racialism, etc. It's the same editor as which is blocked, and  this charming page history including overtly offensive and threatening comments. Per comments on my talk page from, this IP range includes enough positive contributions that it's likely shared by multiple users, and blocking it should be a last resort. I reverted this per Blocking policy, the comments may or may not be superficially appropriate, but this editors behavior is inappropriately disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that, and I'll leave it alone. Thank you for your service.Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not a 'BE'. I read stuff on here from my phone, and sometimes edit when bored. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I first tried editing on this platform a few days ago. This same person above said the same thing then. As I understand it now, by 'BE', I am thought to be an editor evading an account suspension, or something along those lines. I would appear to be involved in similar social media circles, maybe on youtube or twitter, and also from Ontario, Quebec or New York based on IP, but I am not that user. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct about what people think of you. If that isn't you then you should create an account. You may be innocent, but so many people use non logged in accounts for mischief that people will look askance at you.  If you create an account and keep your nose clean, you'll have the power to say what you want just like the rest of us.  Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I normally just use this website to read up on football (soccer) articles, but I could end up creating an account. I felt like chiming in with my two cents on some issues of casual interest. Thanks. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It seemed like you knew what's going on with the science, so you should join us. My prediction for what's going to happen is the article will not be deleted.  Then we're going to have a conversation (fight) about which certain things should be censored and removed from the article.  (I am anti censorship myself)  Should be interesting! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a fight and anyone who views it as such should not be editing in that area. Additionally, the views espoused by 2605 and similar IPs do not suggest familiarity with current scientific consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 23:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with suggesting he get an account is that this will just create another sock. Sprayitchio has had many. See here. . Cheers. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem for you is that I am not any of the users on that list there. And I'd presume, based on your behaviour, you have no evidence either proving that the users on that list are the same people or are associated. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Consensus
You used the edit summary "revert, please seek consensus for major changes" at Race and intelligence. Since this article is not under a special "consensus required" restriction, editors are free to make edits, even major ones, without first seeking consensus. If you object to the substance of the changes, I would be happy to discuss on the talk page, but please do not revert simply because someone did not seek consensus before making a change. –dlthewave ☎ 23:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * They were bold, I reverted, now we discuss. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC


 * You've given no valid reason for the reversion and your discussion amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is disruptive. –dlthewave ☎ 00:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you've been following. 123IP made a bunch of changes a while back.  We had a discussion.  There was a consensus that the changes were not good.  We got rid of those changes.  People are putting similar changes back in against conensus. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You're again attempting to make special rules. "don't delete huge chuncks (sic) without discussion" is not based on policy; editors are allowed to make bold edits without prior discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * dlthewave, Peregrine Fisher should have given a better rationale to revert you. I have provided it. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah. WP:BRD  Totally normal.  You keep being bold, I keep reverting, the discussion says you have not improved the article.  Here's the abnormal part.  You wait a few days.  You do it again.  I do it again.  The discussion goes the same way again. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What "discussion" are you referring to? The only previous comment on the topic, "you know why", was not a discussion. Please engage the topic at hand instead of citing some nonexistent prior discussion or consensus which, even if it it existed, would still be up for debate. If you can point me to where this section has been discussed before, though, I will gladly take that into consideration. –dlthewave ☎ 05:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For a sec there I thought you might have come along after all the discussion and I was going to feel stupid. But, no, you were there.  There's discussions in archive 99, 100, and the talk current page.  I imagine you don't think any of that was a consensus, but I'm pretty sure you know which sections I consider to be consensus. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to the section where Global variation of IQ scores was discussed? I'm not seeing it on the current talk page (aside from the current discussion which I've opened), nor does it appear in archive 99 or 100 unless I've overlooked something. There were several discussions where editors objected to content removal and expressed a desire to discuss it in smaller chunks; what I did here was remove a specific section that was based entirely on primary sources and open a talk page discussion as requested. What exactly is the objection to that? –dlthewave ☎ 16:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just talking about the consensuses about not gutting the article in general. The only one about that section is the that started yesterday. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln
I had recently been thinking about trying to take Abraham Lincoln to FA (as well as the American Civil War), but realized that a group of folks would probably be needed considering the sheer scope. I was planning to reach out to you and see if you were interested in trying to take this to FA, seeing as you shepherded it to GA, but you've gotten involved again and seem to have answered my question. Are you looking to take Lincoln to FA? If so, I would be glad to help. I suspect a few other folks could easily be rounded up to create a FA team.

Clearly much work needs to be done, but gotta start somewhere. I note that since you took it to GA, the article has more than doubled in size, from 73kb prose to 148kb, well over the 100kb preferred limit. Some sub-articles may need to be spun out. A peer review might be a good place to start, try to get some outside eyes on it. Lemme know what ya think! Smooth sailing, CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda interested in working on it. I can not spear head another Honest Abe FA.  It's too much work.  I'd talk about it though.  The first thing that comes to my mind is I had it damn close to FA back in the day.  Like if you reverted to that version and then made all the fixes that a reviewer wanted, it could be done by a few editors each putting in 10-20 hours of work.  That 73 to 148kb is scary.  It's probably a bunch of stuff that didn't improve the article.  What am I saying?  I'd be interested in a somewhat ruthless run at making it an FA.  But I wouldn't want to pussyfoot around, and I don't want to do the heavy lifting. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your reports
This pattern of making one report at AN or ANI after another doesn't seem to be helping anything. If Onetwothreeip continues edit warring against consensus, what you should do is gather the diffs of him doing that over the past two months, and then make a properly-formatted report about it at WP:AE. As I said earlier, I helped one other editor make an AE report last year, so I can I can give you some help with how to do that if you need it. 2600:1004:B15D:697F:F1AB:F59B:5A3B:897D (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that one blew up in my face! I think I'm acting a bit of a dick lately, so I'm going to chill out for a little bit.  AE sounds like the likely next place. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Because of how my IP address periodically changes, if you post in my user talk it's hard to know whether I'll see it, but if you need advice about how to prepare a report for AE, you can ask me in this thread and I'll probably notice it. 2600:1004:B15D:697F:F1AB:F59B:5A3B:897D (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You still watching this? Nice work on checking what is RS without bringing in me and other involved people! I probably wouldn't have helped.  That one uninvolved guy really knew his shit! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm still watching. I had hoped resolving the reliability question could put a stop to the huge undiscussed removals of content, because the main reason previously given for removing it was that its sources allegedly were unreliable. But now the removals are continuing with a different set of justifications. I wonder whether the RSN discussion made any positive difference in the long term? 2600:1004:B12B:F7D4:BDAC:8AA7:CEBB:1BFF (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

(redent) That was genius. If the article doesn't get deleted at DRV, and I don't get shitcanned at AE, it's going to be critical. What we need are impartial looks at the article and it's RSs. That's the next thing people will be disagreeing about. But we'll be able to fast forward a bit and actually get to the content. You never know though. That admin who said "Delete! and I'm taking a vacation starting now!" shows you that people get excited about this. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Spartaz's close was the most epic "I'm getting the fuck out of Dodge" I've even seen on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Major LOL! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

are you following what's happening in the AE report? My reading of the discussion there is that admins are close to agreeing that Peregrine Fisher should be topic banned, even though six of the eight other editors commenting there (yourself, me, Pudeo, Ferahgo the Assassin, rnddude, and SMcCandlish) all feel that a topic ban for him is not appropriate.

As per Dlthewave's statement here, the outcome of this report may depend on whether the huge undiscussed removals are an improvement or not, which in turn depends on whether the material being removed is "fringe". Over the past month I've been looking in the article's talk page archives for issues that have been resolved in the past, and I recently found a discussion there that directly addresses this question. Unfortunately it's from ten years ago, so I don't know whether it would be useful to mention in the present situation, but I wanted you and Peregrine Fisher to be aware of it. 2600:1004:B146:7C71:C16E:37FA:6C52:4ACF (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Reversion
I've previously warned you about reverting without providing a valid reason. Your recent edit at Race and intelligence, with the edit summary "I think this should be included. Let's talk about it." implied that you would explain yourself on the talk page, but your talk page comment consisted of "What are the policy and guideline reasons this should be removed?" In the future, do not revert unless you can provide a valid policy-based reason to do so; otherwise your edits are not likely to stand. Please remember that you're editing in an area that is under Discretionary Sanctions and this type of behavior may be seen as disruptive. –dlthewave ☎ 13:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content, not the editor
Several of your recent comments at Race and intelligence focus on editor behavior, not content, and accuse others of POV pushing: If you feel that there is POV pushing, bias, misrepresentation of sources, etc. taking place, the correct place to raise your concerns would be either a user talk page or a noticeboard such as ANI. I realize that your recent ANI posts have not been well received; you may have more success if your clearly communicate the specific concerns and issues that you're seeing. In any case please keep your talk page comments focused on content and do not use that space to discuss editor behavior. –dlthewave ☎ 03:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "... you have a POV to push when you say "inflammatory political opinions"
 * "... it's all IAR which seems to be the main policy guiding this article"
 * "you don't like the authors"
 * "I'm seeing people calling secondary sources primary sources. And I'm seeing people saying primary sources need to be removed, which is also not true. If you think I should feel chagrined, I don't.
 * Whole thing may be deleted at AfD,DrV, DrV2. Should be interesting. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

AE notice
I've opened an Arbitration Enforcement request regarding your conduct in the Race and Intelligence topic area. The discussion can be found at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. –dlthewave ☎ 18:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

 * New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
 * New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
 * If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    20:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

 * Peregrine Fisher, if you decide to appeal this decision, I suggest that it isn't necessary to go into a lot of detail in your statement in the appeal. Instead, I suggest mostly directing admins' attention to the statements made in the report by myself, Pudeo, Jweiss11, Ferahgo the Assassin, Mr rnddude, SMcCandlish, Paul Siebert, Guettarda, My very best wishes, Springee, and DoubleCross. More than three-quarters of the non-admins commenting in the report (and 100% of those not directly involved in disputes on the article) expressed the view either that topic banning you was not appropriate, or that a better solution would be some sort of general restriction for the entire article. The clearest problem with your topic ban is how the decision made by admins was completely divorced from the views of the wider community. 2600:1004:B10C:DF3:D9A6:8155:B0C0:A846 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah. That was interesting.  Do you know if those people voting were just normal admins or were they all arbcom clerks or something?  If those people are arbcom, an appeal probably won't work. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I think they're just regular admins. Even if some of them aren't, ArbCom clerks don't seem to have any special powers at AE.


 * I'd also like to bring your attention to what I said here, although I doubt that would be worth mentioning in an appeal. 2600:1004:B10C:DF3:D9A6:8155:B0C0:A846 (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine, since I bear you no ill will let me off you a bit of unsolicited advice. I can't speak for the other administrators but I read every comment more than once and considered every point of view and all the diffs presented. So I took into account what everyone said but I was not bound by it. Nor was the closing administrator, who formally implemented a topic ban, but did so after most uninvolved administrators endorsed such an action An appeal to AE is very unlikely to be successful because there was a consensus of uninvolved administrators who felt that a topic ban was appropriate. I would recommend withdrawing your appeal from AE while no one has commented on it and file it instead at Administrator's Noticeboard as it will attract attention from a different set of editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Your AE appeal has been closed as vexatious litigation
Please see my comment here. Now that I see the good advice you got from Barkeep49 above, where he explained that the uninvolved admins are not bound by the other comments, I feel even more strongly that your appeal was vexatious. No prejudice against appealing it at AN instead. But the argument you made would need to be refurbished, as it's based on a flawed assumption about the way AE works. Bishonen &#124; tålk 02:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC).
 * Could you explain about AN vs. AE? THanks.  I assume I can't remove anything like barkeep said because you closed it. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , our comments crossed paths. I was typing that up as you posted your comments at AE and we posted them a minute apart. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * And I'll say I know that AE is for arbcom decisions being enforced later. And AN is for talking to a bunch of admins at one time, I guess?  Just unclear on why AN would be the appropriate place for what I was saying.  Thanks. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If an administrator had just come along and topic banned you from Race and intelligence, broadly construed, WP:AE would be an appropriate place to go. You'd have administrators who deal regularly with Arbitration Enforcement and discretionary sanctions weigh in on the topic ban. However, that's effectively what already happened. AN is a much more visible board and so you get a wider range of perspectives and unlike at AE all editors are considered for the consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sweet. Thanks. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh. Barkeep49, I guess it was a bit unfair for me to complain about PF ignoring your comment, then. Sorry, PF. Anyway, AN is for appealing to the community, AE is for appealing to uninvolved admins. That's the difference, and I do believe AN will suit you better. As for removing it from AE, well, I'd say now you can't; but that needn't stop you from taking it to AN. Also, I was already thinking that there's really no need for me to immortalize your AE appeal in the log; I don't see the point; I'll just let it be archived and forgotten. It would still be better to wait at least a few months with taking it to AN, so that you have time to demonstrate how well you can edit other topics. People look for that when they assess a topic ban appeal. That's my advice. But it's up to you. Bishonen &#124; tålk 03:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC).
 * FWIW I agree with Bishonen that you are far more likely to have a successful appeal if you wait than if you go right now to AN. But it is of course up to you. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

redent. I was going to ask your advice about how to win an appeal, but you nice editors gave it without me asking. Thanks again. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So, "you have time to demonstrate how well you can edit other topics", hmmm... just a thought. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm laughing pretty damn hard! "Why so serious" said the Joker.  I added that lycanthrope thing to my watchlist, but doesn't seem to be going anywhere.  What I need to do is just put in 20 minutes of work on alignment sometime.  I'll add that to my real life TODO list.  Cheers. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed it. One thing you did correctly was asking an explanation from the admin (User QEDK) why exactly he decided to impose the topic ban. According to AE rules, this can be a decision by a single uninvolved admin (QEDK in this case), they do not need consensus on WP:AE. However, he suppose to explain his decision by the rules, and I am sure he will do it if you wait. It is always good to document why exactly you were topic banned - for your subsequent appeals if any. Wait for the official explanation by QEDK (rather than by anyone else) and do not submit any complaints to AE, ANI or elsewhere. And even after their response, the best course of action will probably be to continue edit something else for a while, and then decide if you want any kind of the appeal, and what exactly that appeal might be. Note that template used by QEDK gives you link here. See it: #1 "ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision". That is what you do first. Sure, in that case, they probably will not reconsider. However, there is also another purpose. You must be doing something wrong if you were topic banned, right? You need to have a friendly conversation with the sanctioning admin, so he can explain you better what exactly you did wrong, and you should understand this better. My very best wishes (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I asked them for their reasoning, then I unasked them for their reasoning, then I asked them again for their reasoning. Pretty sure this is the optimal strategy! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So, the given explanation was WP:TE, without any specifics. This is difficult to dispute because WP:TE is pretty much a matter of personal judgement by admins. To put it simple, admins view your contributions in this area as unhelpful, not serving the purpose of improving the content and working collaboratively with others, but the opposite. This is not main area of your interest. Given that, I would recommend you not to appeal this anywhere (that may actually lead to bigger sanctions), editing something else for 6 months (as was actually suggested by some admins), and then politely ask the sanctioning admins if they would be willing to reconsider their decision. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So, that is my recommendation. Acting this way would minimize disruption and save you time and nerves. However, if you still want to complain, your only option is submitting a request for clarification to WP:ARCA asking only one question: was the sanctioning admin "an uninvolved admin", even after voting in an opposite way during this discussion and bringing your comment/disagreement during this discussion (where he had an opposite opinion) as one of the reasons for your topic ban . In any event, do not go to WP:AE or ANI. However, this is my last comment on this, and I will stay out of it. Good buy. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

redent. It's over. You can stick a fork in me. Something like 10 admins wanted to topic ban me. I guess I'll take the hint. I probably can't edit the article even when/if the ban is lifted. All I would do then is revert people who are trying to delete it from the inside, and that would probably get the ban reinstated in about two shakes of a lamb's tail! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll try to get the topic ban lifted eventually, but there's no hurry. It sounds like the best option is to edit something else for a while. Perhaps in a few months the R&I article will be more stable, and then we could work on actually adding some new sources to bring it up to date. 2600:1004:B105:F5A1:A997:5864:C95E:CEE5 (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've moved on for now. It would be interesting if the article could actually be edited and improved like a normal article some day. We'll see.  Good luck! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear what's happened. I greatly appreciated your work, as well as that of Oldstone James.  I hope you get the topic ban lifted.  In any case, thank you for your contributions-- past, present and future.  (And 2600, if you are reading this, thank you too!) Toomim (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Golem (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Golem (Dungeons & Dragons) 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/Golem (Dungeons & Dragons) 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. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I think your # got turned into a :
In this discussion did you mean for your comment at the top to "count"? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  20:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."


 * I was banned from editing that R and I page. Am I also banned from talk pages?  THought I wasn't, but sounds like I am? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken, as noted above, it says "You are indefinitely banned from making any edits related to Race and intelligence, broadly construed." That means any edit - talkpage, noticeboard, article, etc mentioning anything about Race and Intelligence. These are the only exceptions to that. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Thanks for the quick reply.  I wasn't sure.  Now I know.Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Peregrine, it's me again. I wouldn't normally be bringing up this topic with you while you're topic banned, but I noticed your comment in the AN discussion that was subsequently removed, so I can see you're still paying attention to this issue. I have a question for you about it.

You might remember that a few months ago, before you were topic banned, I told you that I'd let you know when I thought the time was right to go to ArbCom over these articles. As you can see from the discussion here, several editors have recently expressed the view that an arbitration case is needed now, including three of the admins who commented in the most recent AE report. But no one is willing to actually make an ArbCom request, and I can't make one myself because that's only possible for registered editors to do.

Do you know whether topic-banned users are allowed to make arbitration requests? The information about this seems contradictory. On one hand, arbitration is not listed among the exceptions to limited topic bans at WP:BANEX unless it's to appeal the topic ban. But on the other hand, the list of past arbitration requests under this case includes many requests made by topic-banned editors that were not appeals, and this seems to have been tolerated.

I've given you bad advice in this area once before, so this time before I request anything from you, I'd like to make sure I have a clear understanding of what is or isn't allowed. If you don't know the answer to this question yourself, it might be worth asking an admin the answer. 2600:1004:B148:5A62:B5D6:EBA7:2FF9:FE06 (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks like someone else is finally requesting arbitration, so never mind with that question. However, assuming ArbCom accepts the case, you should let someone know if you want to be included as a party. 2600:1004:B14F:A9BF:37:3B4A:BC6F:CB5D (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Windy by The Association single cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Windy by The Association single cover.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) 02:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Ultimate X-Men 40 Cover.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ultimate X-Men 40 Cover.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. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Angela Stanton-King for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Angela Stanton-King 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/Angela Stanton-King 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

2019 Oregon wildfires moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, 2019 Oregon wildfires, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Captain Calm (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fight Back to School 3 DVD cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fight Back to School 3 DVD cover.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) 17:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Proud Boys
Hi. Considering the subject, should you even be editing the talk page of Proud Boys per your broadly-construed active topic-ban on anything related to Race and intelligence? —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 08:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
TonyBallioni (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion notice for WP:AE
There is currently a discussion at WP:AE regarding your activity on Talk:Proud Boys. Thank you.

Orphaned non-free image File:I&#39;m on Fire by Bruce Springsteen.ogg
Thanks for uploading File:I&. 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) 02:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks BOZ. I think "they" are making a DnD movie with Chris Pine.  I hope they do a good beholder and a good red dragon! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:The First Cut Is the Deepest by Sheryl Crow.ogg


The file File:The First Cut Is the Deepest by Sheryl Crow.ogg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Insufficient critical commentary to justify usage of the sample. May fail WP:NFCC."

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dungeons & Dragons Grading scheme
Template:Dungeons & Dragons Grading scheme has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:2019 Oregon wildfires


Hello, Peregrine Fisher. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2019 Oregon wildfires".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Angela Stanton King
This is Angela. I understand that you created this page about me. Im having problems with defamation and slander and anyone being able to write lies about me which is damaging to my career, my children, my family and my future. This page needs to be protected from vandalism and my understanding is that you have to be the one to request it. I can be reached by email at asktvshow@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asktv19 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've opened a section at WP:COIN. Grandpallama (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice
Alexbrn (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ,
 * You're already topic-banned from a controversial area; this time you have joined an edit war that led to full protection of the page before.
 * Could you please consider not editing in any of the areas listed at General_sanctions if it isn't possible without disruption?
 * Thanks, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll consider it. You're welcome. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:After Office Hours film.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:After Office Hours film.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) 17:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Mark McCloskey for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mark McCloskey 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/Mark McCloskey 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. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Message in a Bottle by The Police.ogg


The file File:Message in a Bottle by The Police.ogg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Sample insufficiently supported by critical commentary especially of Message in a Bottle (song). May fail WP:NFCC."

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Funkytown by Lipps Inc.ogg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Funkytown by Lipps Inc.ogg, 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. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Achy Jakey Heart for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Achy Jakey Heart 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/Achy Jakey Heart 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. wizzito &#124; say hello!  02:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Faux Pause screenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Faux Pause screenshot.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) 18:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:What About Brian cast photo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:What About Brian cast photo.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) 21:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:I Fought the Law by Bobby Fuller Four.ogg


The file File:I Fought the Law by Bobby Fuller Four.ogg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Insufficiently supported by critical commentary of I Fought the Law. May fail WP:NFCC."

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of File:Sugar, Sugar by The Archies.ogg


The file File:Sugar, Sugar by The Archies.ogg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Insufficiently supported by critical commentary in context about Sugar, Sugar and Bubblegum pop, even with captions. Not contextually significant (WP:NFCC)."

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:
 * File:Blinded by the Light by Manfred Mann's Earth Band.ogg

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Downtown by Petula Clark.ogg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Downtown by Petula Clark.ogg, 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.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Hells Bells by AC DC.ogg


The file File:Hells Bells by AC DC.ogg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Insufficiently supported by critical commentary. Not proven contextually significant to Hells Bells (song)."

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Push It by Salt-N-Pepa.ogg


The file File:Push It by Salt-N-Pepa.ogg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Insufficiently supported by critical commentary, or easily conveyed in text without the non-free content. Not contextually significant to Push It (Salt-n-Pepa song)."

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Teen Angel by Mark Dinning CD cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Teen Angel by Mark Dinning CD cover.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) 03:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:El Paso by Marty Robbins.ogg


The file File:El Paso by Marty Robbins.ogg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Insufficiently supported by critical commentary, or easily conveyed in text. Not contextually significant to El Paso (song) as a whole."

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:
 * File:Running Bear by Johnny Preston.ogg
 * File:Teen Angel by Mark Dinning.ogg

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Rocky Mountain High by John Denver.ogg


The file File:Rocky Mountain High by John Denver.ogg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Portion of Rocky Mountain High heard in sample not proven contextually significant to the whole song. Possibly easily conveyed in text."

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:
 * File:Thank God I'm a Country Boy by John Denver.ogg
 * File:Moody River by Pat Boone.ogg

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Laura Ann Kesling for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Laura Ann Kesling 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/Laura Ann Kesling 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. Ploni (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

monkeys and apes
is monkeys and apes related in any way 2603:7000:DB00:43D1:ACFB:4FFF:FEFB:C618 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

"Iron Golem" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Iron Golem and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 16 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 03:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Southern Cross by Crosby, Stills & Nash.ogg


The file File:Southern Cross by Crosby, Stills & Nash.ogg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Sample inadequate to help readers understand the song (as a whole). May fail WP:NFCC."

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Sabotage by the Beastie Boys.ogg


The file File:Sabotage by the Beastie Boys.ogg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Sample inadequate to help readers understand the song (as a whole). May fail WP:NFCC."

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:
 * File:Sure Shot by the Beastie Boys.ogg

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover of Strider (novel).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cover of Strider (novel).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) 17:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Smooth Criminal by Michael Jackson.ogg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Smooth Criminal by Michael Jackson.ogg, 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.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Faux Pause screenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Faux Pause screenshot.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) 18:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

File:Bones season 1 episode 1.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bones season 1 episode 1.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.

Also:
 * File:Bones season 1 episode 9.jpg
 * File:Bones season 1 episode 10.jpg

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Bones season 1 episode 3.jpg


The file File:Bones season 1 episode 3.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "neither adequately covered by critical commentary nor contextually significant to the episode A Boy in a Tree."

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:
 * File:Bones season 1 episode 8.jpg
 * File:Bones season 1 episode 2.jpg
 * File:Bones season 1 episode 4.jpg

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Jimmy James by the Beastie Boys.ogg


The file File:Jimmy James by the Beastie Boys.ogg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "sample not proven contextually significant to Jimmy James (song). either inadequately covered by text or unneeded for illustration."

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:
 * File:Sailing by Christopher Cross.ogg
 * File:Keep On Loving You by REO Speedwagon.ogg

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks BOZ Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Eve of Destruction by Barry McGuire.ogg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eve of Destruction by Barry McGuire.ogg, 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.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Fight for Your Right by the Beastie Boys.ogg


The file File:Fight for Your Right by the Beastie Boys.ogg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "neither necessary to understand nor contextually significant to the song Eve of Destruction (song)"

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:
 * File:3-Minute Rule by the Beastie Boys.ogg

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Ohio by Crosby, Stills & Nash and Young.ogg


The file File:Ohio by Crosby, Stills & Nash and Young.ogg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "neither necessary to understand nor contextually significant to the song Ohio (Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young song)"

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:
 * File:Eyes Without a Face by Billy Idol.ogg
 * File:White Wedding by Billy Idol.ogg
 * File:Ramble On by Led Zeppelin.ogg
 * File:Woodstock by Crosby, Stills & Nash and Young.ogg

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Katana (comics).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Katana (comics).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) 18:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Great Cats World Park


The article Great Cats World Park has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Lacks evidence of WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV- most of the sources are local news and while minorly controversial, it is no more so than most other large-wild-animal sanctuaries."

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. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Cave Junction, Oregon
Cave Junction, Oregon has been nominated for a 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. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)