User talk:Monster boy1

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. IrishGuy ^talk 20:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Grey. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. VMS Mosaic 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Black. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. VMS Mosaic 22:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Chartruce

A tag has been placed on Chartruce, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1. Ridernyc 22:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was changed to a redirect to chartreuse, of which this was a likely misspelling. --jacobolus (t) 21:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of everything based on something else

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article List of everything based on something else, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Marasmusine 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary colors

I notice you keep adding information about blue, yellow, and red being the primary colors (to the articles green, yellow, blue, etc.). While it's admirable that you want to share this information with Wikipedia, your understanding of the subject is limited, and if you keep adding such statements, they will be reverted. See primary color for a somewhat more sophisticated explanation. I hope you decide to stick around and make more constructive edits to Wikipedia in the future. --jacobolus (t) 22:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Haemo 00:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to 4Kids Entertainment, you will be blocked from editing. --Mhking 18:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to the Cyberchase page, saying that the show is moving to WB is completely inaccurate. If you have a source that is providing this inaccurate information, I would like to know so I can correct them. Cyberchase is a current program on PBS KIDS GO! and there are no plans to show the program on WB. Digit LeBoid 16:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to orange (colour), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike 22:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Orange (colour), you will be blocked from editing. VMS Mosaic 19:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to BeBe Neuwirth, you will be blocked from editing. Insomniacpuppy 10:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of List of Winnie the Pooh books

A tag has been placed on List of Winnie the Pooh books requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Closedmouth 14:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver

Please don't move pages from their correct names (Silver) to names nobody expects (Silver (coin)). Georgia guy 15:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our polices concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.

Hús ö nd 16:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Violet, you will be blocked from editing. Dicklyon (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Digit LeBoid

A tag has been placed on Digit LeBoid requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kids' WB's 2008-2009 shows

An editor has nominated Kids' WB's 2008-2009 shows, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kids' WB's 2008-2009 shows and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Over the Hedge LA Premiere.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Over the Hedge LA Premiere.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Associated acts

You made a number additions to associated acts on Rebecca St. James. They are not correct. Template:Infobox musical artist defines what should be considered an associated act.

This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career.

This field can include, for example, any of the following:

For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
Groups which have spun off from this group
A group from which this group has spun off

Separate multiple entries with commas.

The following uses of this field should be avoided:

Association of groups with members' solo careers
Groups with only one member in common
Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song
Groups that are merely similar

All of your additions violate these. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. I have no idea why you're making some of the edits you're making. Please start explaining.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monster boy1: Yeah, sorry about that, I've noticed that I've forgotten to use the edit summary as well. I would make it so we have to include an edit summary for every time we edit a page, just to help me and anyone else who has this problem. But yeah, I'll start explaining the edits I'm making:

For pages with categories, I like to alphabetize the categories in order to avoid confusion over which category should go where, if you know what I'm saying.
For me taking off the "Australian" part of Olivia Newton-John it's because she moved there when she was 6, she didn't live there since birth, so I don't think it makes sense, but that's just me.

Karan Brar

Someone born in Redmond, Washington and raised in the US, even someone whose parents are of Indian ancestry, is (simply) American, not Indian-American. At most you can say he has Indian ancestry. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|ShortSummary = Zack ([[Dylan and Cole Sprouse|Dylan Sprouse]], Cody ([[Dylan and Cole Sprouse|Cole Sprouse]], London ([[Brenda Song]]), and Mr. Moseby ([[Phill Lewis]])

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Battlefield (album). IPadPerson (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments about your recent edits

First, replacing one infobox for another, as you did on both Amy Grant and Rebecca St. James, is not a good idea. They're both musicians first and so the other infobox, infobox person, doesn't support parameters such as genre, etc. So it's a better idea to embed the more detailed infobox into the other. See Template:Infobox#Embedding.

Second, you cannot add material about other individuals, such as names, bith dates, etc., without a reference. It violates WP:BLP. That was the main reason that I had to revert your additions to the Amy Grant article.

It's a good idea to add that additional information and if you can't figure it out, you can either ask me for help or I can do it for you. I didn't revert the material because you did something bad. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Amy Grant, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. WP:BLP prevents the naming of children and including their birth dates. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. So your source is actually Wikipedia, and that's not allowed. Also, adding it in the edit summary is not adding the source.

The edit summary points to http://askville.amazon.com/Vince-Gill-Amy-Grant-married/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=60770006 That lists her two children. And right at the bottom of that section is Sources: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Amy_Grant. An earlier version of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Bella Thorne, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Christian denominations may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Autonomy not universally recognized)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at List of Christian denominations. According to MOS:HEAD, do not link section headings. Elizium23 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Katy Perry. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Ariana Grande. Binksternet (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Thorne

I do not need to explain what "I love God." means. Rather, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that that indisputably means that she believes in the god YHVH who demands blood sacrifices to atone for sins, sent his son, Yeshua, in human form to die as a substitute sacrifice for all human sins and that she believes that believing this will allow her to go to Heaven after she dies. Seems like a reach.

You will need to provide a reliable source where she specifically self-identifies as a Christian. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://hollowverse.com/bella-thorne/ - Claim proven! :)

"hollowverse.com" seems to be a user edited site, not useful as a source for Wikipedia, especially with regard to information about a living person. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's partially useful. Hollowverse can't directly be used as a source; however, if the interview they cite in their story can be located and verified, then it can be used as a source. —C.Fred (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The site links to its sources. Another tweet with a reference to "God" and the statement "...I go to church almost every Sunday. My beliefs may not be the same as other people in my church or even in my family." We still need a reliable source with self-identification as Christian, Jewish, Jehovahs Witness, Unitarian Universalist or any of the other faiths that might identify as believing in "God". All we know at the moment is that she goes to "church" and may not believe the same things as the people in that church -- whatever it may be.

All of this discussion would be useful on the article's talk page, where other interested editors might comment or provide sources that we can use. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witness and Unitarian Universalist are in the Christian church. Also, you misspelled the "Jehovahs" part. You're welcome.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Monster boy1 (talk • contribs) 01:50, January 5, 2015‎

"The" Christian church? No such animal.

"The theology of individual Unitarian Universalists ranges widely, with the majority being Humanist,[7] but also having members that follow atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, deism, Judaism, Christianity, neopaganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and many more." Unitarian Universalism

I could have sworn the JWs had officially shed the term "Christian" as part of their desire to separate themselves from the Trinity/Christmas/Easter/bodily resurrection/etc. beliefs. Whatever. Feel free to include any other belief system that might use "God" but rejects the "Christian" label.

The point remains. Once your block has expired, feel free to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. You, old lady, have 24 hours to unblock me before I view and copy the sources of all of Wikipedia's pages and put them on my own Wikia. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monster boy1 (talk • contribs)

Threatening to create your own site with WP source text is hardly a valid reason to unblock your account. Do you wish to make a legitimate request to be unblocked, or should your access to this talk page be curtailed for the duration of your block? —C.Fred (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: You can ask Bella Thorne herself. If she says she is a Christian, you unblock me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monster boy1 (talk • contribs)

You should have verified in a secondary source that she's Christian before adding it to the article. Even if we got that evidence now, that doesn't change the underlying issue: you've added material to articles without providing sources, which is a violation of WP:BLP. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that wouldn't matter since 1) I would've been right anyway, and you would've owed me 2) Good administrators don't hold things over their editors heads. BURN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monster boy1 (talk • contribs) 18:43, January 8, 2015

You were blocked for repeatedly restoring poorly sourced information in violation of WP:BLP. Whether or not the material is "right" is immaterial.

If you'd like to copy all of Wikipedia to your own wiki (or anywhere else), knock yourself out. You won't be the first or last to do so.

If you continue to edit other users' comments, you will lose your access to this talk page for the remainder of your block. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, so you're saying that if I was arrested for something I didn't do, and in my trial was found innocent, I should still have to suffer in jail just because whether or not I'm innocent is "immaterial?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monster boy1 (talk • contribs)

You are blocked to prevent further disruption. You were not blocked because you added incorrect information to a biography; you were blocked because you added unsourced information to a biography. This conversation shows that you do not understand the difference and should not be unblocked. —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I KNOW what I was banned for, but I've just been trying to show that I'm willing to look for a source to confirm my information. But it's you and the other devils you call "administrators" are still holding my past over my head and not willing to let me. Thus, you guys are the ones who should be blocked. :)

Oh, why aren't you responding? Are you guys "scared" because I just proved that I was right and should be unblocked? :)

Proposed deletion of List of countries where Christianity is persecuted

The article List of countries where Christianity is persecuted has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is hopelessly POV. Christians are "harassed...because of their witness"? So, a Seventh Day Adventist is harassed by their employer asking them to work on Saturday? Perhaps Chic-Fil-A was "harassed" for their interpretations? U.S. laws would prevent killing a "witch", despite Biblical commands to not allow a witch to live.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. SummerPhD (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed), you know that? Christians are actually victims of violence and sometimes even murder in countries like Syria and Iraq, and you are acting like an idiot and being rude to me like it's nothing. You know that that's what's going on in those countries. That is very cold and cruel of you, and I'm going to start a petition on change.org to get Wikipedia off the Internet because of you.

P.S. As for not permitting a witch to live that just means not to commit a witch inside us to live by committing witchcraft ([[1]])

There was no call for the personal attacks you made in your message. Your account is currently blocked, and such messages will be taken into account when evaluating whether your account should be unblocked—or whether you should be denied access to your talk page for the remainder of the block. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, another moron said I can't edit other people's comments on my talk page, yet they did so to me. I called him that because Christianity is really being persecuted yet he is mocking me about it and insisting that that isn't true. It's because of you two brats that I want to kill myself. By the way, I'll be sure to mention you two as idiots in my Common Sense Media review for this website. :)

That makes it pretty clear that you no longer wish to make legitimate requests to have your account unblocked. I've revoked your talk page access for the duration of your block. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He only "made a personal attack" because SummerPhD was making jokes out of Christianity being persecuted. (if you go to Islamic countries like the ones he mentioned like I have, then you'd know what I'm talking about) If you ask me, those jokes are very evil, especially for an encyclopedia website, even more so than any "personal attack" he could've made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.208.214 (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that your block applies whether logged in or not. You may not edit without logging in to circumvent your block. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey C.Fred and SummerPhD, I'm sorry for all the mean things I said and threatened to do. I realized I was wrong. Can you forgive me?

December 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 Months for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Bella Thorne. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:

{{unblock|reason=Because I know why I was blocked, because I didn't provide referenced material. Now I'm willing to start making edits WITH sources. But one of your administrators (C. Fred or whatever his name is, I honestly don't know or care) is such a devilish brat that he is still holding this over my head, and being very cruel and unforgivign to the point where I want to kill myself. ~~~~}}

. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Monster boy1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's Wikipedia's own fault, if they would just put all edits on pending and approve them without it actually changing the page until then, this wouldn't have happened

Decline reason:

Then you should block Wikipedia, perhaps; in the meantime, this is not an unblock request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

How would pending edits have helped your situation? You would have still gotten cautioned about the inappropriate edits when they were rejected. —C.Fred (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pending edits would've helped, because then people wouldn't be fed information that may or may not be true, like Wikipedia always is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monster boy1 (talk • contribs)

But how would this have helped your situation? You would have made a pending edit that would have gotten rejected. You would have made another edit, which would have gotten rejected. You'd have gotten warned along the way. How would this have changed the way you edit the encyclopedia? —C.Fred (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to reply, just add text below. You don't need to add another unblock template right now. If you did need to file another request, add new text at the bottom, rather than changing the code in Ronjhones' messages. —C.Fred (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you wouldn't have had to warn me with the pending edits method like tv.com has, because it's not like anyone would SEE the "edits." Thus, I'm being banned for something that's Wikipedia's own fault.

Umm, somebody would have reviewed your edits. And, after the same edit got rejected a second time, you'd have gotten warned. So, speaking as an administrator, I don't see where pending edits would have made any difference in this case. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that policy is shit, because I shouldn't get a warning for submitting something twice when the public can't read it yet.

How would you suggest dealing with editors who repeatedly submit inappropriate edits, then? —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask tv.com.

By the way, I mean this is in a nice, helpful way but another thing Wikipedia should do is have a comment section on every article. So the readers can share their opinions. I think that would be kinda neat. :)

In addition to four blocks under this user name, you have several blocks each under 98.229.208.214 and 100.0.125.66. One of those blocks was for 2 weeks, beginning December 4, 2014. During that block, you continued to edit (block evasion) as 98.229.208.214. At this point, a 3 month block is almost too kind. I'd advise you to sit it out. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really think it's best if I just wait for 3 months for just not providing a reasonable source for one of my edits. Look at my list of churches in Foxborough, Massachusetts below.

If you really think you deserve a ~~second~~ ~~third~~ ~~fourth~~ ~~fifth~~ ~~sixth~~ ~~seventh~~ ~~eighth~~ ninth chance after showing no indication of understanding why you've been blocked, feel free to appeal your block. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why I've been banned. It's because I provided unreferenced/poorly referenced material but look at the source I used for this list. Still don't believe I deserve to be unblocked? Check the link below that. It's that little virus C. Fred that is holding my past over my head. Besides, he even said that my threat to copy all of Wikipedia to my own wiki, was "hardly" a valid reason to be unblocked, indicating it still is. Which means I'm right and he is wrong.

List of churches in Foxborough, Massachusetts

Union Church of South Foxboro (Christian)

Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/search/churches+in+Foxborough,+MA/@42.0650676,-71.250048,14z/data=!3m1!4b1

Disney Channel Controversy

On December 23, 2011, a rebroadcast of the episode "Party It Up", where a female character complimented CeCe's brother, Flynn, with the line "'I could just eat you guys up...well, if I ate" aired on the channel that evening. Former Disney Channel star Demi Lovato, who left Sonny with a Chance in the fall of 2010 for counseling because of personal issues, commented on the episode, criticizing the network through Twitter for including a joke about eating disorders when she had struggled through the issue herself, and as one of the reasons for leaving the company's fold. Disney Channel's public relations account responded to Lovato by stating that that episode and an episode of So Random! which had an eating disorder joke would be pulled from the network's airing cycle and reviewed further.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Later in 2012, the episode started airing regularly on Disney Channel with the offending joke removed.
Disney Channel did not broadcast "Quitting Cold Koala" on its originally scheduled date of May 17, 2013 and showed a rerun of "Kids Don't Wanna Be Shunned" instead. The episode did, however, appear on the Disney Channel website, "WATCH Disney Channel", and on "Disney Channel On Demand", the channel's video-on-demand service. Disney Channel announced on their Facebook page "We are removing this particular episode from our regular programming schedule and will re-evaluate its references to gluten restrictions in the character's diet".^[5]^[6] The edited version of "Quitting Cold Koala" aired on July 5, 2013 as part of a 2 episode spectacular. All gluten jokes were removed in the revised version.
On January 28, 2014, Disney Channel announced that a TV episode of Good Luck Charlie will feature two lesbian moms in "Down a Tree". This caused a protest from the conservative group "One Million Moms" who told the Disney Channel company to not include it. Despite the protest, Disney Channel featured it anyway. Other people including actors Miley Cyrus and Evan Rachel Wood praised the episode and supported it.^[7]

References

^ Marcus, Stephanie (December 23, 2011). "Demi Lovato Slams Disney For Eating Disorder Joke On 'Shake It Up' (UPDATE)". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2012-01-16.
^ https://twitter.com/#!/DisneyChannelPR/status/150418514426081281
^ "Demi Lovato Slams Disney Channel - Eating Disorder Joke". Gossip Cop. 2011-12-23. Retrieved 2012-01-16.
^ "Demi Lovato Fans Upset Over Last Episode Of So Random". Disney InfoNet. 2011-08-18. Retrieved 2012-01-16.
^ "To our viewers". Disney Channel official Facebook. May 17, 2013. Retrieved May 20, 2013.
^ Castillo, Michelle (May 20, 2013). "Disney pulls "Jessie" episode that makes fun of gluten-free child". CBS news. Archived from the original on May 20, 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^ Nichols, James (February 3, 2014). "One Million Moms Responds To Lesbian Couple On Disney Channel's 'Good Luck Charlie'". The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 5, 2014.

January 2015

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Your block has expired, and you may edit articles on Wikipedia again. Please consult the Help area for information how to edit here. Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 14:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of I Love the USA!

The article I Love the USA! has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some evidence of the game's notability: http://www.amazon.com/Global-Software-Publishing-A1055M2H-Love/dp/B00006GXBZ

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Monster boy1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Port cities and towns in England

Why are you removing places from that category? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because they have their own category and I figured I could add them there and better organize them by where they are in England, by county to be exact.

What's the point? We already have, for instance, Category:Ports and harbours of Cumbria. What you are doing is redundant over-categorization. South West England is not a county. However, it is a region, and if a category is to serve any useful function, doing it on a regional basis rather than a county basis would be a much better way forward. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry. :/

MBTA stations

Why are you alphabetizing the categories on these stations? There is no reason to do so. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not harming anyone, I'm not vandalizing the article or anything like that and I actually think alphabetizing them is a good way to organize the categories, instead of just by whatever. Just my two cents though.

It's not useful, and it's just a string of edits that clog up watchlists. Especially since you don't use edit summaries. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're subdividing libraries by neighborhood for no reason. Stop that. Making lots of tiny categories is not productive and you've been repeatedly told not to do that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but just so you know, I don't see how it's not productive, because the way I see it it organizes them by where they are in the city.

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Southeastern Massachusetts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Worcester County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Monster boy1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coastal towns on the Outer Cape has been nominated for discussion

Category:Coastal towns on the Outer Cape, 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. Eric ^talk 13:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coastal cities in Barnstable County, Massachusetts has been nominated for discussion

Category:Coastal cities in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, 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. Eric ^talk 13:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coastal towns in Barnstable County, Massachusetts has been nominated for discussion

Category:Coastal towns in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, 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. Eric ^talk 13:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated coastal places in Yarmouth, Massachusetts has been nominated for discussion

Category:Populated coastal places in Yarmouth, Massachusetts, 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. Eric ^talk 13:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated coastal places in Mashpee, Massachusetts has been nominated for discussion

Category:Populated coastal places in Mashpee, Massachusetts, 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. Eric ^talk 13:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated coastal places in Sandwich, Massachusetts has been nominated for discussion

Category:Populated coastal places in Sandwich, Massachusetts, 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. Eric ^talk 13:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated coastal places in Harwich, Massachusetts has been nominated for discussion

Category:Populated coastal places in Harwich, Massachusetts, 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. Eric ^talk 13:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated coastal places in Falmouth, Massachusetts has been nominated for discussion

Category:Populated coastal places in Falmouth, Massachusetts, 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. Eric ^talk 13:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated coastal places in Dennis, Massachusetts has been nominated for discussion

Category:Populated coastal places in Dennis, Massachusetts, 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. Eric ^talk 13:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated coastal places in Chatham, Massachusetts has been nominated for discussion

Category:Populated coastal places in Chatham, Massachusetts, 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. Eric ^talk 13:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Libraries in Copley Square has been nominated for discussion

Category:Libraries in Copley Square, 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. Eric ^talk 13:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated coastal places in "Down-Island" Martha's Vineyard has been nominated for discussion

Category:Populated coastal places in "Down-Island" Martha's Vineyard, 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. Eric ^talk 13:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated coastal places in "Up-Island" Martha's Vineyard has been nominated for discussion

Category:Populated coastal places in "Up-Island" Martha's Vineyard, 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. Eric ^talk 13:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated coastal places in Tisbury, Massachusetts has been nominated for discussion

Category:Populated coastal places in Tisbury, Massachusetts, 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. Eric ^talk 13:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated coastal places in Chilmark, Massachusetts has been nominated for discussion

Category:Populated coastal places in Chilmark, Massachusetts, 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. Eric ^talk 13:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated coastal places in Gosnold, Massachusetts has been nominated for discussion

Category:Populated coastal places in Gosnold, Massachusetts, 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. Eric ^talk 13:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated coastal places on Martha's Vineyard has been nominated for discussion

Category:Populated coastal places on Martha's Vineyard, 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. Eric ^talk 13:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal places categorization campaign

Marcocapelle, Oculi, Timrollpickering, BrownHairedGirl: I'm pinging you because you were all involved in a CfD relating to this user's previous categorization campaign (where he never commented). As he's now renewing the campaign, I thought I'd ask you all how to proceed. And maybe he will engage in the discussion this time. At least some of the categories he is creating/re-creating are superfluous. For example, all towns in Barnstable County are coastal, so there's no need to categorize them as "coastal towns in Barnstable County". Eric ^talk 20:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric: as far as I can see, what's happening is that Category:Populated coastal places in Massachusetts is being subcategorised by county.

That seems to me to be probably OK in principle, so long as WP:SMALLCAT is respected. So I'd want to see an average of over 5 pages per category.

Have you made any estimates of the cat sizes? https://petscan.wmflabs.org is handy tool for such tasks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

BrownHairedGirl- Thanks for checking in, and for the tool link. I ran it for the last three cats he's created and got 1, 7, and 1 hit, respectively. As I read WP:SMALLCAT, it seems certain that at least one does not meet the criteria: Category:Populated coastal places in Nantucket County, Massachusetts. This county is an island, and is conterminous with its one town of the same name, so there can be no point to the cat. The others are unnecessary as well for the reason I state above. It all looks to me like make-work and edit count inflation, not an improvement to the encyclopedia. Eric ^talk 17:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric: I get better results. E.g. see results for Dukes County --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl:- Your wizardry with the tool is greater than mine, that is clear. Thanks for taking another look. But the point of the Dukes cat escapes me for the same reasons: Every "place" in Dukes county is necessarily "coastal" as the county consists of a group of islands. I think this kind of categorization makes us look silly. But it may be that I'm just missing something. Eric ^talk 23:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric: it depends how you look at it. If you see it as a division of Dukes, it is probably pointless. But as a division of ~100 pages which woukd otherwise be in Category:Populated coastal places in Massachusetts, it makes a lot of sense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Marcocapelle, Oculi, Timrollpickering, BrownHairedGirl- I just want to run these category creations by you one last time before I give up applying logic to them: These "populated coastal place in X" categories created on Feb 25 seem pointless to me, as in each case X is the name of a coastal town that is by its nature a "populated coastal place". In case you're not familiar with the geography concerned, these categories are the equivalent of having ones called Populated coastal places in Venice, California or Populated coastal places in Penzance. Eric ^talk 02:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric:, this is about categories. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that both you and Monster boy1 misunderstand the category structure at work here. Your analogies such as Penzance and Venice, CA are different to the by-county cats listed above, because each of those is already in a popcaostaplaces cat. e.g. Penzance is in Category:Populated coastal places in Cornwall, so any page within Category:Penzance or its subcats is already categorised as a coastal place.

What Monster boy1 started doing was subcategorising Category:Populated coastal places in Massachusetts by county. That was legitinmate, for reasons I explained in a prev reply, above.

However, the new categories such as Category:Populated coastal places in Quincy, Massachusetts are indeed pointless, and the analogy with Penzance/Venice,CA does apply.

Eric, if you could distinguish between the by-county cats (which are good) and the by-town cats (superfluous), then I'd be happy to support a CFD nomination to delete Category:Populated coastal places in Quincy, Massachusetts etc.

Oh, and in the, meantime @Monster boy1, please stop creating such these categories and start discussing here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @BrownHairedGirl:. The by-county cats for counties that consist of only coastal towns seem superfluous to me, but I take your point about their place in the context of the cat structure. For the town ones: This contribution list has ten "populated coastal places" and one "coastal villages", all for towns that are themselves coastal (contributions selected for page creation, date range Nov 22 to Feb 25). Note that if you take out those dates, you will see many cats that can have only one page in them, such as "libraries in X" or "cemeteries in X", where X is a small geography. And I now note from looking above on this talkpage that I am not the only one to bring up such issues with this editor. Eric ^talk 03:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would better organize the populated coastal places in Massachusetts if I did that especially since not every place in Quincy is populated or coastal. Sorry. -Monster_boy1

CfD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_27#Populated_coastal_places_in_Cape_Cod_towns

FYI: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_27#Populated_coastal_places_in_Cape_Cod_towns Eric ^talk 03:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl:, @Oculi:, @Peterkingiron:: Re the outcome of the above discussion, what is the next step? Eric ^talk 02:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest upmerging all the "populated coastal places in Foo, Mass" categories to the by-county categs. That needs one group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Unitarian Universalist churches in Southeastern Massachusetts

A tag has been placed on Category:Unitarian Universalist churches in Southeastern Massachusetts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Populated coastal places in Kent County, Rhode Island

A tag has been placed on Category:Populated coastal places in Kent County, Rhode Island requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Lessons from the Hundred Acre Wood

The article Lessons from the Hundred Acre Wood has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable adaptation; doesn't meet the criteria listed at WP:NBOOK. A WP:BEFORE search yields no substantial coverage in reliable sources.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hotels in Financial District, Boston has been nominated for merging

Category:Hotels in Financial District, Boston has been nominated for merging. 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. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Restaurants in Beacon Hill, Boston has been nominated for merging

Category:Restaurants in Beacon Hill, Boston has been nominated for merging. 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. User:Namiba 18:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bookstores in Financial District, Boston has been nominated for deletion

Category:Bookstores in Financial District, Boston 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. User:Namiba 19:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buildings and structures in West Tisbury, Massachusetts has been nominated for deletion

Category:Buildings and structures in West Tisbury, Massachusetts 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. User:Namiba 15:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cemeteries in Brighton, Boston has been nominated for merging

Category:Cemeteries in Brighton, Boston has been nominated for merging. 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. User:Namiba 16:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Marcus, Stephanie (December 23, 2011). "Demi Lovato Slams Disney For Eating Disorder Joke On 'Shake It Up' (UPDATE)". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2012-01-16.

[2] ttps://twitter.com/#!/DisneyChannelPR/status/150418514426081281

[3] "Demi Lovato Slams Disney Channel - Eating Disorder Joke". Gossip Cop. 2011-12-23. Retrieved 2012-01-16.

[4] "Demi Lovato Fans Upset Over Last Episode Of So Random". Disney InfoNet. 2011-08-18. Retrieved 2012-01-16.

[5] "To our viewers". Disney Channel official Facebook. May 17, 2013. Retrieved May 20, 2013.

[6] Castillo, Michelle (May 20, 2013). "Disney pulls "Jessie" episode that makes fun of gluten-free child". CBS news. Archived from the original on May 20, 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[7] Nichols, James (February 3, 2014). "One Million Moms Responds To Lesbian Couple On Disney Channel's 'Good Luck Charlie'". The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 5, 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]