User talk:Bedivere (usurped)

Welcome!

Hello, Bedivere, 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 ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

MBisanzBot (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Style note

Thank you for the new Bell's prime number theorem. I have just a small note. Per WP:MSM, math notation should be in italic or TeX, so one should write <math>p</math> or ''p'' instead of a plain p. Small thing, but worth noting. :) You can reply here if you have comments. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've flagged Bell's prime number theorem as unreferenced because I can't find a source that actually links this result to Bell - I've also added a note on its talk page. If you have a reference (somewhere on-line or in print that actually calls this result Bell's prime number theorem) then please add it to the article and remove the unreferenced tag. Thanks. Gandalf61 11:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell's prime number theorem

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Bell's prime number theorem, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. PrimeHunter 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to query

If you've contested the prod by removing the tag, then the other editor must take the article to the AfD process if s/he wishes to delete it. This triggers a 5-day debate on whether or not to delete the article in which all community members can participate. If this happens, you can contest deletion by commenting at the specific AfD page (which will be linked from the article page if it is submitted to AfD).

Sorry I can't be of any more specific help, as I'm not a mathematician. You might consider asking at the talk page of WikiProject Mathematics, where you might find a suitable expert. Regards, Espresso Addict 22:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. I knew p^2-a^2 = (p-a)(p+a) and could easily derive this "theorem" and many similar observations from such knowledge. Similarly, I know multiplication but I don't currently know what 1234*5678 is. However, I could easily compute it, but the result would not be notable and I wouldn't call it a theorem. And whatever the article is called, it has to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. PrimeHunter 01:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell's prime number theorem

Hello Bedivere. If you believe that the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bell's prime number theorem was invalid, or wish to re-establish the article for any other reason, please consider posting a message at Wikipedia:Deletion review for further consideration. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bell, of course, has a wiki article in existence. If you could provide a solid reference linking him to the allegedly eponymous prime number theorem, you could apply at WP:DRV for reinstatement of the article. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions

Hi there; It's always nice to find a new editor who appears keen to improve the encyclopedia. You will, of course, do this by contributing to WP:AfD, where you have spent most of your time here. But it is important to develop all-round skills by contributing articles as well. Working in WP:CSD and WP:AIV and WP:UAA are also useful skills to develop. Happy wikying.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, and there is nothing at all wrong with your AfD edits, although to be fair I did not agree with all of them (that does not make them wrong). My pointreally is that if you want to progress in wikipedia you need to develop, and maintain, a well-rounded and balanced experience as shown in edit-count. Then, when you go for admin (not yet) you don't meet unwarranted criticism. May I incidentally suggest that it is worth building a user-page? It makes it look as if you intend to stay! It need not say much, and you can copy the format from the page of any user who's page takes your fancy. Userboxes are at WP:UBX, as you might expect! --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi,

I succeeded at my RfA nomination.

Thank you for your exceptionally kind words.

I wish you the best of luck! --Amir E. Aharoni 23:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New scientist quote

Hi! Could you please add the name of the "New Scientist" article you added as a source for information at Tsien Hsue-shen? ‎Also, is there a quote from this which could be added into the text of the article? Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 00:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 02:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American philosophers

Hi, I notice you voted "speedy keep" on the above AFD. You've probably seen the speedy keep page and I'd appreciate if you would return to this AFD to clarify which of the four speedy keep reasons from that page this nomination meets, or alternatively if you find it does not meet any of them, amend your vote accordingly. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless i missed something, you !voted Strong keep not speedy keep,--which of course does not count more than a keep, except for expressing the personal strength of your view, which I suppose is what you meant. Even had you said speedy keep, which I do not think would really have been right since the AfD is apparently in good faith, I don't see why someone should come here to complain about it. You may !vote as you think best, as long as it is not obstructive--and neither of these could reasonably be so considered. Your view is as good as anyone else's, and counts just as much as mine or Stifles--it's the quality of the argument that actually matters, no matter who says it. DGG (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Successful RfA - Thank you!

Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It was successful, and I was promoted to Administrator today. I appreciate the support! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one expects a Pigman admin!

		Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal...
		My sincere thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 51 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the government-bred race of pigmen in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. Even a man pure of heart and who says his prayers at night can become a were-boar when the moon is full and sweet. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Wikipedia for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Wikipedia, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. I am not an animal; I am an admin. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Wikipedia, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Wikipedia to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. Pigman^what?/trail 05:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Post Scriptum: I believe my collaged graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of parody for my purposes here. Or is it satire? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on my talk page, probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.

Your Cited Source Is Incorrect: The Gypsy Rover

Hello Bedivere -

Though I did not revert your previous comments about The Gypsy Rover, I likely would have had someone named Ogg not done it already. I do wish you had consulted the Talk page before re-reverting. The idea that Leo Maguire wrote this song is just flat out wrong. As I note on the Talk page, Maguire was simply doing what most pop-folk groups did in the 50s-60's - claiming copyright credit for a pre-existent song for financial gain. The story of "writin" it on a dare simply adds a degree of blowhard to the equation.

Your cited source is a glorified blog that includes a number of errors regarding other traditional songs. Partisans of the Johhny Fa'a family of gypsy songs apparently don't understand the way folksongs morph into often vary different variants - "The Bard of Armagh," for example, being the established base for the blues classic "St. James Infirmary."

An extended discussion of the pre-Maguire copyright history and variants of the song that became GR exists on Mudcat.org, a far more authoritative source:

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=10547#73576

Please see the authoritative and annotated posts halfway down the thread from John Minear, who presents nearly identical versions to Maguire's so-called "composition" that date from the 1870s.

This article, however, brief, needs an accurate rewrite, not a revert to a statement that is prima facie incorrect. Sensei48 04:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks back for your prompt response. You're absolutely right IMHO about the lack of reliability of public cites like the Mudcat,org thread I posted as an alternative to your cited source about "The Gypsy Rover," and that's one reason I haven't done even a minor rewrite of that very short article. However, the writer with the most authoritative-sounding history of the song on Mudcat cites a fair number of published and copyrighted works. These will be relatively easy to check out when I get a little time as I have ready access to some pretty substantial library holdings. If the references do in fact check out and there exist earlier copyrighted and published versions that are clear antecedents of the song as currently sung, then I'll make some slight rewording to the current article. Your basic point is well taken: in any form, "The Gypsy Rover" (or "Whistling Gypsy") is almost certainly a bastardized and sentimentalized variant on the darker more traditional Child ballads about Johhnny Fa'a/Gypsy Davey and so on - and Leo Maguire must take his share of the blame (or credit) for disseminating this version. But and BTW - when I learned to play and sing this song around 1960 (from the dozens of versions that pop folk groups were releasing), on of my Irish grandmothers who was born in County Mayo in 1891 was delighted, recalled singing the song as a little girl, and knew almost exactly the same words that I had learned from a Clancy Brothers album. That of course is in Wiki terms original research and not acceptable as a source for the article - but it does suggest to me that I'm not barking up the wrong tree. Sensei48 (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Howdy Bedivere, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 04:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my RFA

<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday!

I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia.

Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poe

Its from the 1880 and 1900 Census, I would have loaded the images, but almost all the ones I loaded previously have been deleted. Its a lot of work, and all it takes is one editor who doesn't understand, or like it to hit the delete button and its gone. The ref got pushed into the next sentence. I think I will load them directly into Google and link to them. Almost everything I have added to Wikicommons has been deleted, so I don't waste my time anymore with images. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Goldman

Hi, I just tagged the article as a stub to encourage other editors to help, you are doing a great work and I have nothing to comment on it :) Maybe you wished to talk with User talk:Sephiroth BCR, look at the history :) --Raistlin (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Samuel Goldman

Looks better. I'd recommend you find more sources for verification however. When you create articles that are extremely short, and have no references initially, it raises flags as to the article's actual notability. If you state one or two sources when creating the article, then it look significantly better to the watchers at Special:Newpages. I was going to mark it was a CSD A7, but as he was a Knight Commander of the British Empire, and held a government position, I was fairly sure of his notability. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Poe

check out the census links and make sure they look right to you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrander descendant of Poe's assistant

Hello,

I am Arthur F. Ostrander's grandson, and have posted the Ostrander info to Poe's page. We have a large lot of Poe memorabilia and artifacts, including the actual device itself. I am in the process of posting updated birth/death dates of Abram and Arthur Ostrander, from our Ostrander "Big Book" as it is called, more properly, Ostrander: a genealogical record, 1660-1995, by Emmett and Vinton Ostrander. Great work so far, thanks for the help!

Greg Ostrander--Greg Ostrander (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poe

Yes, fixed it, it was Poe II's daughter. Good call. Cheers. I fixed the one in Wikia too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools, with my main goals being to help out with various backlogs. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. :) I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. Have a good new year, --El on ka 04:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Poe clarification

Hello again,

Thanks again for all the help with this. You are correct. My grandfather was 10 when he started working with Poe, but was 11 or 12 when they actually departed on tour in 1906-7 time frame. So I guess the age could be adjusted accordingly.

Also, I posted a picture there the other day from the New York Times in 1907. It was grainy, but one of the few that I am absolutely sure of when and where it was taken, who is in it, and is also free of copyright due to date of original publication. It has since been deleted. I am disappointed, as it was a good illustration of the circumstances and discovery process they went through. If you took it down, could you suggest a better photo, or what I could do to improve it?

I am going to add additional members to the familypedia pages; I have alot of good info on several more members, and basic info back to 1660. Thanks also for showing me this.

-Greg Ostrander--Greg Ostrander (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed unsuccessfully with 25 support, 18 oppose, and 6 neutral. Thanks for the support and I'll look forward working with you. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you very much for giving your support to my admin application, which recently closed successfully (36/3/1). I hope I can continue to justify the confidence that you have placed in me. If there is any way that I can help out more, please drop me a line. Thanks again. - 52 Pickup (deal) 22:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riana's request for bureaucratship

Dear Bedivere, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Thanks!

So, yeah, you know how these work... »»»»
Thank you very much for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with a final tally of (75/1/0). Your trust in me is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you it has not been misplaced. I shall use these tools to the best of my ability, and will do my best not to let you down. Thank you once again, and happy editing as always! *Hersfold* ^(t/a/c) 20:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I've added rollback permission to your account; please remember to use it for vandalism only. Happy reverting! --Kakofonous (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescent illusion et alia

You appear to have created the pages Adolescent illusion, Antiquity illusion, Infrequency illusion, and Out-group illusion citing a single source that mentions each "illusion" more or less in passing. None of these ideas seems to be notable within the field of linguistics and none of the pages seem to satisfy the general notability guideline for inclusion. See discussion at Talk:Adolescent illusion. If you disagree and can cite sources showing that the concepts are notable, please do so. Otherwise, I expect to propose the pages for deletion in a couple of weeks. Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Adolescent illusion

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

Non-notable variant of a recent observation in linguistics. This term is mentioned in passing in a New Scientist article on the Recency illusion, and in a few blog posts. There are no reliable sources that discuss the idea in depth. Compare Antiquity illusion, Infrequency illusion, Out-group illusion

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Antiquity illusion

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

Non-notable variant of a recent observation in linguistics. This term is mentioned in passing in a New Scientist article on the Recency illusion, and in a few blog posts. There are no reliable sources that discuss the idea in depth. Compare Adolescent illusion, Infrequency illusion, Out-group illusion

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Infrequency illusion

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

Non-notable variant of a recent observation in linguistics. This term is mentioned in passing in a New Scientist article on the Recency illusion, and in a few blog posts. There are no reliable sources that discuss the idea in depth. Compare Antiquity illusion, Adolescent illusion, Out-group illusion

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Out-group illusion

The article Out-group illusion has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable variant of a recent observation in linguistics. This term is mentioned in passing in a New Scientist article on the Recency illusion, and in a few blog posts. There are no reliable sources that discuss the idea in depth. Compare Antiquity illusion, Infrequency illusion, Adolescent illusion

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

The Wikipedia Library (talk | edit)

Get free access to research!

...Support Open Access...

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:BNF

Template:BNF has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Adrian Benjamin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adrian Benjamin 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/Adrian Benjamin 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 until the discussion has finished.

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]