User talk:Teknolyze

Welcome!

Hello, Teknolyze, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okies

All we need is external links. i know IGN put them on their website, we just need to ask Korey for any reviews of them, controversy, links in third party, and anything in the media. If the website does not have spill.com in its address bar we need it. I have a copy saved to word, not completely up to date but its ready and waiting when we have it sorted. In the meantime dont piss the admin's off by bad pages, i've read the rest, they might be targetting you specifically. Peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbray2 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon now...

Really... Wikipedia is not the place to generate publicity for a film. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 19:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

There's a reply to your message on my talk page. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 20:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pov pushing

I would like to let you know that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia. You have recently made several alterations to Northern Ireland towns and cities removing UK based references and templates and altering some references to Northern Ireland to just Ireland. Please stop. Ben W Bell talk 07:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed some more of your edits where you remove references to the UK or Britain, remove Northern from Northern Ireland and alter articles to state they are Irish films when they are British films. Please stop this deliberate POV pushing through Wikipedia or you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia, so please do not use it to push your own brand of POV. Ben W Bell talk 10:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using Wikipedia to push your own political POV, as you have done yet again with this edit. Removal of a valid and worldwide used term for a version more compatible with your viewpoint is not acceptable on Wikipedia. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia in this way you will be blocked from editing. Ben W Bell talk 12:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of your continued POV pushing and alteration of terms on Wikipedia, as per this edit you have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. You are welcome to return once your block has expired but continued vandalism may result in further blocks. Ben W Bell talk 12:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate letter to a hypocrite

What is your fucking problem! you blocked me from editing because I altered an out of date term for the group of islands in which we both live that enforces the long abolished sense of british imperialism enforced on my country, with a far more approriate AND I might add, a perfectly recognised and accepted one? Look, you seem to have no problem going around wikipedia deleting anthing legitimatly irish and claiming it as british (dispite the fact you were born in Ireland) yet you attack anyone with half a sense of pride about where they come from who atempts the reverse. Y'know, I was initialy sorry for calling you a hypocrite, telling myself that you were only defending your opinion like anyone else in a perfectly honest way, but I now realise I was right the first time.

By the way, I'm also writing this to inform you that whenever you inapropiatly attempt to claim any Irish (or northern irish) person, place or thing as british, I'll be there. And I'm seventeen, so I have a hell of a lot of free time on my hands. user talk:Teknolyze

You were blocked for altering established worldwide accepted terms to suit your own political POV, and also for previous alterations of articles to make them appear to be of Irish origin when they were not. If something is British it is British, if something is Irish it is Irish. If you continue to add incorrect and personally motivated information to Wikipedia then you may be blocked again in future, so please don't. Ben W Bell talk 12:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Teknolyze, Ben W Bell does seem to have issues with being Irish born, I am English and certainly NOT British, just because the Government classes everyone as British to avoid excessive admin you should be able to state what part of the "United Kingdom" you are from.

We should state what our nationalities are in the UK but Ben seems to think that they do not exist!

If you check his comments page Flexcoupling agrees with what my disagreement with Ben was about. msa1701

For your information I have no issues whatsoever with my nationality or citizenship of birth. Fact, I was born in Northern Ireland. Fact, that automatically makes me a British citizen. Fact, being born in Northern Ireland gives you the option of taking Irish citizenship. Fact, I have choices in my life over my self-identity. I don't believe accidents of people's birth makes them what they are, but choices in how they identify. Yes I was born in Northern Ireland, yes that makes me a British citizen, yes I can choose Irish citizenship, yes I can choose to be a Unionist, yes I can choose to be a Republican, yes I can choose to be Catholic/Protestant/anything else I really want to be. I have no issues with my self identification or with accidents of birth which is irrelevant. All that matters are the choices you make for yourself, not what others say your choices are or what your opinions and thought should be. Ben W Bell talk 12:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and personal attacks

Regarding this edit, if you continue to push vandalism and personal attack edits you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ben W Bell talk 03:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look mate, you've been following me around, watching my every move for god knows how long now and it's just getting tiresom having to respond every time you threaten to block me from editing for doing whatever. Haven't you got anything better to do with your time? Because if all you do on this site is follow people like me around waiting for them to do something that offends your bigoted sensebilities, that makes you one of the most pathetic, sad, miserable wastes of space I have ever encountered in my short lifespan. You truly do make me sick. So just stop bothering me and I'll stop bothering you and neither of us will have to endure the other again. Alright? User: Teknolyze

P.S. Fergal Sharkey is a registered irish citizen you prick.

A welcome and a warning

Thank you for your word of warning. However I have no interest getting involved with any personal disputes you may have with any other wikipedians. (Okeeffe.christopher (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Fair enough. Just for the record though, I wasn't trying to get you involved with anything. Happy editing User:Teknolyze

Absolute final warning

Due to this edit and [1] edit this is your last and final warning about your edits. If you cannot contribute to a NEUTRAL encyclopaedia in a civil manner then you will be banned from editing Wikipedia.

And just so you know, it may be little known and often ignored or outright vilified, but anyone born in Northern Ireland is automatically a British citizen just like anyone born in Scotland, England or Wales. They have a right to choose to take on Irish citizenship as well, or if they like to revoke their British citizenship and only have Irish (which has to voluntarily be taken up unless the parents are Irish citizens as well), but they are still British citizens until such time as they revoke it. Most people completely ignore it and in the long run it makes absolutely no difference to people's lives as it will have no impact for the majority, but fact is fact.

Oh and if I'm watching your edits it is only because you have a history of vandalism, incredibly slanted POV edits and personal attacks. I am not pro-British, I am not anti-British, I am not pro-Irish, I am no anti-Irish. I edit a neutral encyclopaedia by the rules and procedures established by the encyclopaedia. If you want a soapbox for your own brand of opinions then maybe you're better off editing somewhere else. Ben W Bell talk 00:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just had to have the final word didn't you? Bias is bias no matter what you call it. Now could you please just leave me alone?User: Teknolyze

Film nationalities

Please note. Just because a film is set in a country or filmed in a country doesn't mean the film is a product of that country or of that nationality. The nationality of a film is internationally recognised by film studios, institutes and other organisations as the nationality of the company doing the production and creation of the film. For instance despite being filmed and set in Japan, The Last Samurai is a US film, not a Japanese film. Similarly films made by companies based in London are UK films, not Irish films even if set in Ireland. A film set in London but made by a production company based in Dublin would be an Irish film despite being filmed in the UK. Ben W Bell talk 23:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I know. That's why I only edit the articles in which the film in question is legitimatly irish. If a film has partial UK funding, that does not necessarily make it a British film if the film was started through an irish production company.

And incedentily, if what you claim is true, then why do you often delete the Category section saying "irish films" on certain articles like Divorcing Jack and leave only the Category saying "british films" on certain pages? User:Teknolyze

Divorcing Jack, made by Scala Productions, 15 Frith Street, London, W1D 4RE. A British company, not an Irish company. Divorcing Jack isn't an Irish film, it's a British film. As are many that you are setting to Irish films. I'm sure the edits are in good faith, but a bit of research before labelling British made films as Irish films is needed. Ben W Bell talk 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. But it also had irish funding in it, and was directed by an irishman from the republic who went on the record being appaled that it was being sold as a "british" film. As a compromise I think the Categorys for both irish and british films should be used. Plus, on a similar note, the film of michael collins was produced through an american company but I don't think anyone would go calling that an american film. keep that in mind. User:Teknolyze

How a film is defined isn't up to us, it's up to the international film community who use the nationality of the production company as the indicator for the film's nationality. This is Wikipedia, where we report on facts and decisions made by other people, we don't make up and decide for ourselves these facts. And where the money comes from is completely irrelevant to the equation, most film financing actually comes from or through German financiers, but most films are most certainly not German films. Ben W Bell talk 23:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting really tiresome alright? Look, if I go and change something to something else through editing that you believe to be inaccurate, you go and change it back. And I'll do likewise. I'm really sorry for all the crap I kept arguing with you about, just please leave me alone and stop bothering me so I can get back to what I actually want to be doing here. Now please go and do something more productive with your time rather than sending me messages about your point of view. It's been made clear. User:Teknolyze

Please stop with the fake film nationalities. Making up a film's nationality just because it was filmed/set somewhere isn't how a film's nationality is internationally accepted. I have pointed this out to you several times and you still insist on continuing this editing pattern. Even the category you are putting them into is wrong anyway as it states "This category contains articles about films made by companies based in the Republic of Ireland." This is your final warning on the topic, please stop. Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What fake film nationalities? Are you accusing me of making up imaginary countries now or something? And I remain baffled about how you can remain so staunch about your consistant defence of everything british about northern Ireland yet still claim to be neutral. For the last time could you please find something a little more constructive to do with your time than watching my every move like some internet stalker? I'm sure there are plenty of articles on fake british people, places, and things that need your attention. And I'd really,really like someone other than you to appear on my talk page from time to time. User:Teknolyze

You are adding false information to articles, that constitutes vandalism. Claiming films to be Irish films when they are not is vandalism, and you have been warned many times. Canterbury Tail talk 02:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, its a very good thing I don't go around wikipedia adding false information to articles and claiming films to be irish when they're not isn't it? I'm not a vandal like you've called me on several occasions, so your warnings mean nothing as they are clearly about nothing. You also keep ignoring the fact that you have yourself in the past vandalised my page. Wouldn't you call that an abuse of your power as someone who can block others from editing for whatever reason you see fit? Teknolyze (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have vandalised your page? When? I'd like to point out you do have a past history of more traditional vandalism though that seems to have stopped. And you keep adding the category to films stating they are Irish films when they are not. That is adding false information. The category you keep adding is misleading and incorrect. Canterbury Tail talk 04:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and just so you know, I have been a little harsh. It would indeed be wrong of me to block you on this matter for two reasons. 1) it is effectively a content dispute that I am involved in and 2) you are not doing it out of any malicious intent, or attempt to deliberately vandalise Wikipedia and introduce false content. Your edits on this matter are in good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 13:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. And thank you for finally admitting as much. However I can't make the promise that I'll stop adding an "Irish films" category to the bottom of a page when I honestly do myself believe that it's deserved. And I do always verify things before adding them depite what you may have been lead to believe Teknolyze (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Sex Bob-omb

A tag has been placed on Sex Bob-omb 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 band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. FlyingToaster 18:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Spill.Com

A tag has been placed on Spill.Com 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 web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Spill.Com

A tag has been placed on Spill.Com 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 web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but what is your problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobo2 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Spill.Com

I have nominated Spill.Com, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spill.Com. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: The article was not deleted through the Speedy Deletion process, which is different and has different requirements from the Articles for Deletion process. You are welcome to present your opinion on the matter at the AfD discussion page, the article Talk page is not the proper place for AfD comments. As for Ain't It Cool News, it has several references from third-party, reliable sources to establish its notability. The article is not being considered for deletion because it is an advertisement, but because the article did not establish the site's notability. Please also see WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Spill.Com

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. MuffledThud (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spill.com

If you want the article to exist, the AfD told you what you need to do: provide citations to reliable sources covering the website. Not PR reprints or passing mentions, but actual third-party extensive content about the website. If you can produce that, the article has a greater chance of remaining on Wikipedia. You had seven days to produce the necessary sources, but nobody could provide it nor did you participate in the AfD.

Reposting the exact content, or in your last attempt, even less content, will not do. If you choose to be deceptive and create the article under a different name so you can't be found, that article will also be deleted and you may be blocked for disruptive editing. Reposting to the exact same name is also disruptive and may result in you being blocked. You have been warned, so don't do it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I told you twice [2][3] that you were welcome to participate in the deletion discussion. The article you reposted was deleted per policy. Your article talk page plea stated that the article "has a right to exist". It does not as it was determined that the article does not currently have enough sources to provide the notability it needs. See also WP:USEFUL.

As for your stalking allegations, I would have left you alone, but as soon as you proposed being deceptive, you were trying to game the system and I warned you about that. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I'll give you some last bit of friendly advice: You can create a user sub page at User:Teknolyze/Spill.com, for example, to work on the page on-wiki while you try to provide additional third-party sources for the article. The article in your user space should remain undeleted while you work on it (within reason, you can't write totally promotional articles or attack articles, of which I am not saying that the previous article was). Once you believe the article has enough sources to establish its notability, you can move or copy it to main space, though you may want to get a second or third outside opinion upon the state of the article before you move/copy it.

If you attempt to repost the article as is under a different name in main space in order to avoid detection and deletion, be insulting or baiting to administrators and other editors, or generally be confrontational in trying to get the article into main space, it will likely be deleted once again. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spill.com

yeah im glad there is finally one that isn't deleted, it was really dumb that they did before. thanks for a lot of the material for the page, it was definitely useful in creating the one I made.Smithers45 (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Teknolyze! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Ruairi Robinson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
David Gleeson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian

Can you explain why you keep changing the infobox to "left wing" on the artic;e talk page when you get a chance ? I don't understand your reasons. It's contradicted by the source cited and the article content. Cheers. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

answered on my page to keep it in one place. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Participism

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Participism, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.abitabout.com/Participatory+economy.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the page just created doesn't contain any copyrighted text. It contains mostly just condensed sections from two other related wikipedia pages. The page is about a political philosophy that is made up of two seperate economic and political systems brought together - thus I had to look to both of the already existing pages to draw information from.

Teknolyze (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Artificial market

The article Artificial market has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NEO - I am unable to uncover significant independent reliable source coverage of this neologism.

While all 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. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Artificial market for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right-libertarianism

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You have refused to engage in discussion at the talk page which explained the problems with your edit. Please see them and do not revert all that material. People who engage in such behavior can be banned from an article. CarolMooreDC 23:30, 5 March 2013 (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) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Participism

The article Participism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable neologism with no coverage in sources. Not worth redirecting to parecon, which does not mention the concept either.

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. czar 00:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]