User talk:Maternalistic Lioness

Welcome!

Hello, Tots & little ones matter!, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — $f r ❄$ 10:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45335980. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Cabayi (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45335980. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Cabayi (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your assertion in the edit summary that you want to "restore censored article" this deletion request is solely about your failure to observe copyright, not about censorship. A score of 75% on the copyright detector shows you're copying the text. Cabayi (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that the article "appears to be a direct copy" is simply incorrect. You used the wrong procedure under WP:G12 to respond to some reused phrases in the article that may have been acceptable under WP:LIMITED. The criterion WP:G12 is absolutely crystal clear that "for equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as ... close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio|url=insert URL here}}" and not speedily deleted. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Cabayi that didn't seem very civil.. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Creating BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures has been speedy deleted twice now as unambiguous copyright infringement by two different admins. If you don't think it was warranted then I suggest that you take it up with the admins, user: RHaworth and user:Anthony Appleyard . Don't make personal attacks on the editor who requested the speedy deletion. Meters (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Berkhamsted child rape network

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Berkhamsted child rape network, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.herts.police.uk/news-and-appeals/Paedophile_ring_jailed_for_online_abuse_of_children_1355 and other cited sources, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Berkhamsted child rape network and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Berkhamsted child rape network, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Berkhamsted child rape network. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Berkhamsted child rape network with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Berkhamsted child rape network saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've also deleted User:Tots & little ones matter!/BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures. Re-posting content that had already been twice deleted as copyvio is really the height of unwisdom, and shows a worrying disregard for our policies and practices (please see in particular our copyright policy and our WP:neutrality policy, both of which are relevant to you). Please be aware that if you again copy into Wikipedia copyrighted content from external sources, you may be suspended from editing without any further warning. So ... please don't! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not simply repost the content, as you are alleging, I reworded almost every part that was highlighed by copyvios, except direct quotes by individuals in quotation marks. Far from showing "a worrying disregard for our policies and practices", I posted the reworded content as a temporary draft on a user page, not an article, and deliberately invited scrutiny from other editors with the aim of resolving any remaining copyright issues first before making it an article. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy and neutral point of view

Hello. Given some of your editing behavior, certain comments in edit summaries, and your username, please review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on Advocacy, Neutrality, and Biographies of living people. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, even for noble ideas. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berkhamsted child rape network moved to draftspace

There are too many issues to deal with in mainspace; a rewrite is probably a good idea, but, per WP:NODEADLINE, draft- or user-space is the best place.

Writing about crime can be difficult

As Wikipedians striving for greater coverage and inclusion on topics relating to crime, we face unique challenges:

The risk of being deplatformed by those who find our information "triggering". This insidious attitude is extremely reprehensible because it silences those whose stories desperately need to be heard.
A very real threat of retaliation from criminals who don't want to be written about.
A negative stigma, owing to the odious subject matter we are driven to cover. This stigma is of course unfair – many of the most highly regarded careers involve a niche interest in an unpleasant problem – the doctors and nurses treating diseases we would rather not think about, the police officers arresting the perpetrators of henious crimes, etc. By giving up our free time, we are taking major problems humanity face seriously. A greater knowledge and awareness of criminal matters is often of benefit to society.

These challenges are serious and they are real. I wish some Wikipedia editors would be more understanding. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, that's bollocks and you know it is.

I was going to make the point that there are categories full of material on sex crimes and child abuse, Category:Child sexual abuse in England and Category:Rape in England among others, and a navigation template to link them together on-screen {{Child sexual abuse in the UK}}. But you know that already - you've incorporated them into your new draft, Draft:Berkhamsted child rape network/Temp.

The problem is imho that you're pursuing an agenda in which building an encyclopedia is only a tangential side effect. Your conflict of interest blinds you to the problems with your writing whether it's the copyright violations or, in your latest draft, the urge to bold the names of the perpetrators (cf. Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal#October 2018) and the lengths of their sentences.

Once you start to approach your writing as contributing to an encyclopedia, rather than exploiting Wikipedia as a platform to pursue greater justice for the victims of child abuse, you'll find your progress much easier. If you think that you're the first person to raise these issues, and expect that Wikipedia has been waiting for you to wake it to the issues and will change its function to suit your desires you will be bitterly disappointed. It's an encyclopedia, no more, no less. Please, take the time to read Wikipedia:Five pillars. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi,

Your attitude proves my point.

In your explanation for deleting my article on the BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures, you gave false information leading me to believe your decision to delete the material was incorrect:

You censured the information as a "direct copy", which would be commonly understood to mean that article's entire text had simply been copied and pasted and was exactly the same as the BBC News article.
- A "direct quotation" is commonly understood to mean one in which the words were not changed.
- A "copy" is commonly understood to mean a duplicate.
Your other explanation was "You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences." The problem here was that every sentence my article was different to those in the BBC News article. Again your reasons for censuring my article appeared incorrect.

It is apparent that you are blind to your own poor wording and thoughtless miscommunication.

Instead of assuming WP:IGNORANCE arising from your own failure to clearly communicate, you thought I was "exploiting Wikipedia as a platform to pursue greater justice for the victims of child abuse", which you wouldn't have thought if I was writing about something more positive. We all make mistakes. Let's see if we can learn from them and move on.

Tots & little ones matter! 21:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"which you wouldn't have thought if I was writing about something more positive" - not quite, I think that because:

Your username is pretty blatantly parking your tanks on the lawn, an impression backed up by
your single-minded focus on the one topic, and
your bad-faith accusations against anybody who has called you on your wiki-issues that they are opposed to coverage of the topic.

That said, I appreciate seeing that you fixed some of the points I mentioned, and see reason to hope that you'll develop as a wikipedia editor. One word of advice from what I've seen of your contributions today - be patient. Trying to short-cut the processes just makes things harder to achieve in the long run. Cabayi (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I find it strange that you're still upset about the text I used two weeks ago. It comes from the templates {{Db-copyvio-notice}} & {{Db-csd-notice-custom}}. If you have a genuine problem with the text, and can suggest ways to improve what are two very widely used templates, and you're sure your improvement will work in every context, please raise it on their talk pages. Cabayi (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Berkhamsted child rape network moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Berkhamsted child rape network is a reproduction of a page that has been moved to draft. I've moved this page to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a draft that's being investigated for copyright issues. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back to Draft:Berkhamsted child rape network/Temp where it started off. (courtesy fyi ping for K.e.coffman) Cabayi (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about fair use phrases

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I am trying to work out which phrases in this table that were highlighted in a copyvios report are permissible under fair use and whether any are a copyright violation. Would anyone mind taking a quick peek and telling me if any of the phrases are a copyright violation? Thanks. Tots & little ones matter! 20:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already told you, the phrases that are copied from the sources are highlighted in red in this tool; you can ignore proper names and (limited) quotations in quotation marks. There's not really a great deal of it left, but there is – for example – just no reason to write "two years and six months" when you could just as well write "two and a half years", no reason to write "with a five year extended licence" when you could just as well say "and five years on licence" or "with a further five on licence" or "with an extended licence period of five years". I've already offered once to deal with this for you, but saw no indication that that was wanted; the offer still stands. Please don't make any further edit to Draft:Berkhamsted child rape network – it carries a large notice which clearly tells you not to do that – but make your changes to Draft:Berkhamsted child rape network/Temp only. Please also understand that we have, unfortunately, many copyright problems to deal with and not many people to deal with them; someone will deal with this one sooner or later, but pestering people is unlikely to make it happen any sooner. Thanks.

I'm leaving this open just in case some other admin has a second or different opinion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, I am accepting your kind offer to rephrase any remaining copyright violations in my draft. I have restored the Conviction(s) column and rephrased the criminal offences as much as possible. If there are any remaining violations then please do fix them. Thank you. Tots & little ones matter! 16:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pendent

Hi Tots & little ones matter!, Good day. I am one of the reviewers in Wikipedia and I have checked the sources you provided and could not find anywhere that stated the operation of child abuse case was the result of operation Pendent. I also checked on the web and would not find anything of the name as well. Kindly advise why the name of the article is chosen and if I have missed Operation Pendent mentions in any of the sources you provided, kindly inform. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've ignored my advice to avoid trying to short-cut the processes so that we now have 3 copies of the article to deal with.

I don't think I'm making any wild assumptions when I say Operation Pendent is a cleaned up version of Draft:Berkhamsted child rape network/Temp as shown by the fact you've re-created Berkhamsted child rape network as a redirect to the new article.

Justlettersandnumbers, would it be acceptable for Tots to tag Draft:Berkhamsted child rape network and Draft:Berkhamsted child rape network/Temp with {{db-g7}}? Or for the creation of Operation Pendent to be taken as an implicit G7 for those drafts? The copyright investigation queue is backed up enough without redundant requests. Cabayi (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now at Berkhamsted paedophile ring, and can be developed there. I advise TLOM to stop treating this encyclopaedia as a playground. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi, please do not leave such descriptive edit summaries about child abuse, and in particular do not include names of living people. For example, when adding a link to a template, "add link" is usually enough. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 01:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did not ask for a reply. Please stop misleading other administrators by creating the impression you did. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Kidwelly satanic child rape cult

Hello, Tots & little ones matter!,

Thanks for creating Kidwelly satanic child rape cult! I edit here too, under the username Hughesdarren and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Hi, Good article on a terrible crime, I'm just placing a copyvio suspected tag and getting a second opinion

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A more experienced editor says good to go and tag removed. Well done on a good article. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Tots & little ones matter! and BLPDELETE review. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not topic banned, I would advise you to change your user name per Wikipedia:Changing username and consult with other users prior to creating any new page on this subject (but you did this before already...) My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By saying "If you are not topic banned" I meant you should wait until the closing/ending of the WP/AN discussion and only then request it. But right now - please follow the advice by Risker below and check WP:SOCK. Your comment here and especially the title does not look encouraging ... My very best wishes (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating and using additional accounts

Tots & little ones matter!, do not create additional accounts. I note that you have requested a username change, and that you have separately created an account with the requested username. Sorry to tell you this, but that now means it is not possible for you to have your current username changed to your requested one without a lot of people doing a lot of work. You've also created another account. You're going to have to stick with this username for a while, until a global renamer is able to look at the situation for you; this is no longer a matter of a simple change.

More importantly, you have used your new account to contact a user on his userpage in relation to a discussion in which you are heavily involved; this is a deceptive and unacceptable use of a second/alternate account. Both of your additional accounts will be indefinitely blocked once I finish writing this post. I'm going to have to report this situation in the current noticeboard thread, and it is quite possible that the community will decide to block you for a period or possibly indefinitely. Risker (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your question at AN, here is the list of global renamers. The ones who are admins on English Wikipedia will have "en" as their primary language (examples: Dlohcierekim, Nihonjoe, TheSandDoctor, Xeno - all of whom have been active in the last few days, so they're likely to be responsive). I do suggest that you hold off until the AN thread is closed one way or another, but write to the global renamer directly using "email this user" - you will have to activate an email address to do so, and that will be necessary in almost every renaming case. You can also discuss with the global renamer how to secure your preferred username ("MamaLioness"), which would add a few extra steps for the renamer (they would have to rename the current "MamaLioness" account to "MamaLioness (usurped)" or something similar) but is technically possible. When you write to the global renamer, ensure that you include a link to the AN thread, where your "ownership" of that account is established. You will probably need to mark that account as an alternate account of yours, see WP:SOCK; you can do so by posting on the userpage with your "official" account. An example of this is here. The global renamer will do their best to walk you through the process, which can sometimes take a few days. I hope this is helpful.

I was mistaken in thinking that there was an interface that allowed you to directly request a username change right from the Wikipedia:Changing username page; I think it had been there in the past and I simply forgot that it's been updated. Risker (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The direct interface is Special:GlobalRenameRequest (at the very bottom of WP:CHU Risker)) –xeno^talk 12:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Risker If the problems are cleared up and the user not blocked, you can ping me and I can rename if I'm around. Of course, I don't rename if the AN(I) thread shows this to be a poor idea.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Thank you for your kind offer. I am ready to change my username. The AN discussion was closed with no action against me. No one had any objections to changing it provided I waited until after the AN discussion was closed. I am displaying a message on my user page indicating that my name is changing, so I think everything is ready.

When you have a chance, please change my username to "MamaLioness". Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do it. It already exists. @Risker:, what next?-- Dloh cier ekim 22:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Okay then, if you are able to, please change my username to "Maternalistic Lioness". I appreciate your help immensely. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim, you can change the username of the current account named "MamaLioness" to "MamaLioness (usurped)" or "MamaLioness (renamed)", and that will free up the chosen username which you can then use. Tots, the password that you have right now on the account of that name still works. Before Dloh moves things around, you should mark on the USER page of that account that it is an alternate account of your current username, and do so while signed into this account - in fact, I suggest that you do that for both of the accounts you created and do it as soon as you read this message. Then once this account has been renamed, re-sign both of the userpage statements using your new account name. You can see an example at User:Risker on the road, which is one of my alternate accounts. Unless something has radically changed, this should work. I'm not really around right now (I'm at Wikimania which ironically keeps me mostly offline), but I'll try to respond if pinged. Risker (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I see that Dlohcierekim has already renamed your account to your other option, so nevermind the above. I still strongly urge you to confirm "ownership" of the two accounts you created by signing off using your new username while logged in using this account. I'd also suggest you consider enabling "email this user" on all the accounts, because it's the only way to get passwords when you forget them. Risker (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that is required between the two accounts already seems to have been done. My old account can no longer be used. I cannot lot in as "Tots & little ones matter!" and my old user page is automatically redirected to my new user page.

Maternalistic Lioness (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Draft:Norwich child rape and sadistic abuse ring" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:Norwich child rape and sadistic abuse ring. Since you had some involvement with the Draft:Norwich child rape and sadistic abuse ring redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Adam9007 (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"User:Tots & little ones matter!/Kidwelly satanic child rape cult" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:Tots & little ones matter!/Kidwelly satanic child rape cult. Since you had some involvement with the User:Tots & little ones matter!/Kidwelly satanic child rape cult redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Adam9007 (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RE

[1]. In a situation like that, you might ask an opinion of an administrator who previously deleted the page and started the AN thread - just to be safe. You can use their talk page, i.e. TonyBallioni. Main question here if the page has any obvious WP:BLP violations. I quickly checked and think your draft is OK, but there could be different opinions. My very best wishes (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recreated the page because I thought it was perfectly fine, but it has been deleted. You should probably wait for a week to see if anyone responds at WP:AN, and then ask an advice from any of administrators on their talk page if no one responds on WP:AN. I have no idea what is going on and will not be able to help. Good luck, My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The AN thread was archived, and I asked here. From now, this is entirely your responsibility. Personally, I think the info you are trying to deliver is not really important. Consider this. There is actually a well known pedophile and mass murderer who is also a head of a state somewhere in Eurasia. All leaders of the "free world" meet with him, shake his hand, etc. Is not it more notable? My very best wishes (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

globally renamed Tots & little ones matter! to Maternalistic Lioness

globally renamed Tots & little ones matter! to Maternalistic Lioness. You're welcome. My pleasure.-- Dloh cier ekim 00:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Operation Voicer for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Manchester child sex abuse ring for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Manchester child sex abuse ring 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/Manchester child sex abuse ring until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Reallythoughbro (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of major crimes in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Durham (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) 07:53, 4 November 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]