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.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Special Delivery (Milly y los Vecinos album) 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, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a 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 your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend you declare who you are
I recommend that you soon declare the identities of your other accounts. No new user makes their first edit outside of their userspace as a blank RfA article, nor do they immediately jump to commenting on AfDs. As such, this is clearly your second, or more, account, and without an indication of who it is, combined with your questionable behavior so far, people are apt to assume that you're not here to contribute in good faith. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Senor Taichi. You have new messages at Qwyrxian's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
"Science"
Hi. Because no one has ever said anything about the fact that "She Blinded Me with Science" and "He Blasted Me with Science" have any sort of similarity before, it is against the bylaws of Wikipedia (namely WP:OR and WP:RS) to feature this information in any form. End of discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop reverting on the article. Your edits to the page have inserted various factual inaccuracies, added information about episodes that have not aired, and remove formatting found on all other pages.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Old AFD pages are not moved. If a second nomination occurs, then the page will automatically be made at "2nd nomination". Your moves are breaking everything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:49, 28 February 2013 (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).
I never imagined this arguement would escalate into a disruptive block. Can we discuss the dispute here?
Decline reason:
Procedural; not a request to unblock. You can absolutely discuss the dispute here, if you like, but do not use the {{unblock}} template unless and until you're actually requesting to be unblocked. You can post on this page (and this page only) without using the template. Thanks. UltraExactZZ
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.
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
The dispute must have beenrecently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
Open/close quick reference
To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
The page is continuously edited to include incorrect information that are not even supported by the references the editors use. I listed the facts with countless high-quality references, but these were all ignored. A previous attempt by someone else to add the authors book to the description was removed due to "self promotion". This page is clearly run by people who seem to have a personal issue with the subject.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Review sources, remove unsupported statements from the page
Summary of dispute by Valereee
Ongoing COI with socking has been an issue at this article. I recommended that this editor go to Teahouse, but they decided to come here. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by BubbaJoe123456
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jessica Nabongo discussion
I've pulled the name of the other woman out of the lead, as I think that may be what this editor is most objecting to, and it probably isn't strictly necessary there. Valereee (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Jessica Nabongo)
I am ready to conduct moderated discussion about the Jessica Nabongo article when the conditions are satisfied for moderated discussion. The listing of parties appears to be problematic. One of the editors who is listed does not appear to have been involved in the controversy. On the other hand, an editor who has edited the article has not been included. The other editors have not been notified. It is not necessary to notify Valereee, who has made a statement. All editors who have either made disputed edits or taken part in the discussion should be listed and notified.
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. If you agree to moderated discussion, please state concisely what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
There are only two pieces of information in the article that are crucial to the lead: the assertion, and the fact the assertion is disputed by Spotts. At minimum, the fact the assertion is disputed needs to stay in the lead.
The support for the fact it's credibly disputed was removed in this edit by BubbaJoe123456 who had come in to do a copy edit and, while agreeing the content should be included in the lede, didn't think it needed to be cited and attributed there. I'd argued at the time that this piece of information needed a cite/attribution in the lead to a highly reliable source (an academic in a peer-reviewed journal) because it was that piece of info that was being edit warred over by COI/SPA editors, but agreed to let it go as a third editor, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, also thought it didn't need to be cited/attributed in the lead. Valereee (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by possible moderator (Jessica Nabongo)
So far only one editor has responded. I will begin moderated discussion when at least two editors reply, and those editors agree to the proposed rules and answer my content dispute question, and then only if there is a substantive disagreement between those editors. Please state what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. Also, please state that you agree to DRN Rule D.
An information about an ancient deity in Kemet has surfaced where the goddess Neith is described by ancient egyptians as 'Libyan Neith' shows the origins of this deity, user A. Parrot argues that this information is false and that Neith has purely egyptian origins while user Potymkin claims that Libyan Neith as described by ancient egyptians is the case, user A. Parrot presents Wilkinson and Lesko two egyptologists as proof that the deity is purely egyptian but after much reading reading on their works and presenting their books and page numbers in the talk page, even these egyptologists disagree with the point that Neith is purely egyptian and solemnly agree with Libyan Neith. after contacting Lesko via email she appears to be on board with Libyan Neith. the matter requires final settlement as neither party wants to concede.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I think taking time to consider both sides of the matter and the arguments presented in the talk page can help resolve the issue
Summary of dispute by A. Parrot
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Neith was worshipped in Egypt for more than 3,000 years, and the earliest evidence about her dates to the very murky Protodynastic Period. The sources describe her origins as uncertain; Five Egyptian Goddesses: Their Possible Beginnings, Actions, and Relationships in the Third Millennium BCE by Susan Tower Hollis says (p. 115) that Neith "presents the biggest puzzle of these goddesses".
At particular issue are two passages from books in the article's source list. Lesko 1999 says (p. 47) "Hermann Kees describes the northwestern part of the delta as being inhabited primarily by Libyans and points out that during the Old Kingdom Neith was characterized by Egyptians as Neith from Libya, 'as if she was the chieftainess of the neighboring people with whom the inhabitants of the Nile valley were at all times at war.' Other Egyptologists dispute this connection, however, and the first appearance of Neith is purely Egyptian." Wilkinson 2003 says (p. 157) "Although she was sometimes called 'Neith of Libya', this reference may simply refer to the proximity of the Libyan region to the goddess's chief province in the western Delta."
Potymkin insists the article should describe Neith as Libyan or "Egypto-Libyan" and regards these passages in the sources as supporting that position. I believe the article should say scholars are uncertain about Neith's origins but describe a Libyan origin for her as a viable hypothesis—not a certainty. Potymkin continues to mischaracterize me as insisting Neith was "purely Egyptian". A. Parrot (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neith discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I am ready to conduct moderated discussion about the Neith article .
Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to follow these rules and whether you want moderated discussion.
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. If you agree to moderated discussion, please state concisely what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statements by editors (Neith)
Thank you @Robert McClenon for offering to help to make wikipedia articles more comprehensive I am happy that you are able to provide some of your time for this issue, in the Neith article I would like to keep the following statement in the lead of the article: "was an early Libyan deity worshipped by Libyans and ancient Egyptians. She was adopted from Libya (or was a divinity of the local Libyan population in Sais in Egypt, where her oracle was located). Her worship is attested as early as Predynastic Egypt, around 6000 BC." along with all of its relevant sources, this is due to sources I provided from UNESCO library, World History Encyclopedia which their publications are recommended by many educational institutions including:
Closed due to failure to identify other parties. The filing editor has not listed or notified any other editors. There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor should resume discussion on the article talk page for 24 hours, with the objective of focusing the disagreement. If there is focused but inconclusive discussion for at least 24 more hours, a new request can be filed here, listing and notifying the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I started this article in August 2, building the content on my draft. My purpose was to rectify what I had previously exposed in Talk:Global catastrophic risk as a confusion "between a hypothetical event, diversely imagined and theorized along history (both in religious thought and outside it), with a specific (yet not monolithic) framework that emerged in the very recent period and became known mainly as 'existential risk', especially in philosophical literature". I decided to create this article as rigorous as I could, using mainly sources that explicit stated the intellectual history of this field, which I found a sufficient amount. I then put the draft in the review process, in which it was soon approved and published in the mainspace. From that very moment I started to receive dismissive statements in the article talk page, the first section of which was, symptomatically, named only "What?", from which the editor started to insist on some points that, frankly, could only come, I think, from someone that didnt take the time to read the article and neither the sources. This user, for example, stated both that "this article discusses none of this: the history of the term, who uses it." and also that "I don't know why we would redirect Existential risk to this article, which is essentially taking a historiography approach.". Confusing and contradictory. Given the space, I cant really cover the whole discussion, but I would like to make clear that i invited the users multiple times to provide sources which minimally contradict the presentation of the topic, and until now none has been presented. Its extremely frustrating to see that I took all the effort to based the article on reliable sources and somehow I am loosing against superficial analogies, ad hoc rules and a kind of questioning which has no openness to answers. I really wish that a independent editor could review the article and the discussion to help us find a solution for this.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The discussion has mainly evolved around one section Talk:Existential risk studies#What?, but today I found out that one user has created another section proposing the move of the article to the draft. I engaged with every point, and used the sources available to substantiate my position, as well as reviewing the article which is considered to be overlapping with this one. I tried to engage with one user in his talk page, but they didnt answer at all User talk:GreenC#Existential risk
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I am having a hard time even understanding what is the point of the discussion beyond the attempt to discredit it. But I think that some flashing point are the quality of the article, its reliability on the sources to state what it states, and also the relation of 'existential risk' to 'existential risk studies'. If we are to believe in the sources, then existential risk is a concept of existential risk studies, which means that the redirection should be changed to it, but my edit was reverted.
Existential risk studies discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Criminal Charges section, since renamed Charges of fraud, election offences and misconduct in public office. No other political party in the UK has this section, but each party in the UK has members who have had these issues. Therefore, it is not consistent with other Wiki articles about political parties in UK. The section was included out of political motivation during an election campaign period, made very prominent, and mainly used to deliver a smear campaign via social media during the election period. Either add the same section for all other parties in UK or remove it from this page to be consistent across all wiki pages about political parties in UK. When I have previously removed the section it was added straight back and lies where then published on wiki naming me as Tom Hollis/Ashfield Independent, which is not true. As per talk section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashfield_Independents Criminal Charges
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
NB - Criminal Charges section, since renamed Charges of fraud, election offences and misconduct in public office
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Remove the section entitled 'Charges of fraud, election offences and misconduct in public office' Or add this section for every other political party in the UK mentioned on wiki. Then stop this article from being vandalized.
Summary of dispute by AshfieldPoliticss
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 208.169.86.177
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 74.222.67.162
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ashfield Independents discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I started this article in August 2, building the content on my draft. My purpose was to rectify what I had previously exposed in Talk:Global catastrophic risk as a confusion "between a hypothetical event, diversely imagined and theorized along history (both in religious thought and outside it), with a specific (yet not monolithic) framework that emerged in the very recent period and became known mainly as 'existential risk', especially in philosophical literature". I decided to create this article as rigorous as I could, using mainly sources that explicit stated the intellectual history of this field, which I found a sufficient amount. I then put the draft in the review process, in which it was soon approved and published in the mainspace. From that very moment I started to receive dismissive statements in the article talk page, the first section of which was, symptomatically, named only "What?", from which the editor started to insist on some points that, frankly, could only come, I think, from someone that didnt take the time to read the article and neither the sources. This user, for example, stated both that "this article discusses none of this: the history of the term, who uses it." and also that "I don't know why we would redirect Existential risk to this article, which is essentially taking a historiography approach.". Confusing and contradictory. Given the space, I cant really cover the whole discussion, but I would like to make clear that i invited the users multiple times to provide sources which minimally contradict the presentation of the topic, and until now none has been presented. Its extremely frustrating to see that I took all the effort to based the article on reliable sources and somehow I am loosing against superficial analogies, ad hoc rules and a kind of questioning which has no openness to answers. I really wish that a independent editor could review the article and the discussion to help us find a solution for this.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The discussion has mainly evolved around one section Talk:Existential risk studies#What?, but today I found out that one user has created another section proposing the move of the article to the draft. I engaged with every point, and used the sources available to substantiate my position, as well as reviewing the article which is considered to be overlapping with this one. I tried to engage with one user in his talk page, but they didnt answer at all User talk:GreenC#Existential risk
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I am having a hard time even understanding what is the point of the discussion beyond the attempt to discredit it. But I think that some flashing point are the quality of the article, its reliability on the sources to state what it states, and also the relation of 'existential risk' to 'existential risk studies'. If we are to believe in the sources, then existential risk is a concept of existential risk studies, which means that the redirection should be changed to it, but my edit was reverted.
Summary of dispute by WeyerStudentOfAgrippa
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GreenC
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Alenoach
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Existential risk studies discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop adding different episode names without a citation to back it up, as well as changing the protection template added by an admin, and removal of an episode summary. Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is in regards now to you continually changing episode 6's title without a source validating your change. Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
– New discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.