User talk:Kurieeto

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding Roosevelt's 1942 Letter To King[edit]

Hello, I know where this information comes from. It was brough to the attention of Quebecers very recently in 1990 by journalist and political researcher Jean-François Lisée. In this book In the eye of the eagle, he quotes the letter to Mackenzie King. There is an online source which published a quote from the said book here :

www.republiquelibre.org/cousture/ROO2.HTM

Hope this helps.

-- Mathieugp 22:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well well, I also searched following your appeal to me and finally found the same link as Mathieugp. I also found out that it previously was mentioned in 1981, in Lawrence Martin's book The Presidents and The Prime Ministers (reference: [1]). It was finally mentioned in Normand Lester's Le Livre Noir du Canada Anglais from 2001. Well, I wish I could take the initial credit for finding the information but Mathieugp beat me to it! ;) I hope the extra stuff I added enriches your quest.
...a strange and unfortunate letter from an otherwise interesting political figure.
--Liberlogos 05:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Linking users to categories[edit]

I took out the category links from my user page. Oops - thanks for pointing out the problem. GrantNeufeld 14:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know him all that well, but he seems to be a genuine and decent person. He's been doing some very good social justice work (especially with Friends of Medicare) - which is where I know him from. I was very glad to see him elected (along with David Swann, who I've worked with a bit over the past couple years on peace activism - especially around Iraq). GrantNeufeld 14:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NDP[edit]

Thanks for keeping on top of Michaelm's edits on the NDP. He seems to be making a career out of making unresearched and incorrect edits. I have been trying to keep on top of his edits to correct his mistakes. I am glad to have some assistance in this regard. Kevintoronto 15:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, I appreciate the work you've done in correcting his blatant errors and admire your patience in continuing to do so. Hopefully more voices of reason will help change his behaviour. Kurieeto 21:44, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Neoconservatism[edit]

It's a bit tricky...I think the difference between neoconservatism and neoliberalism is easier to recognize than it is to articulate. For example, I wouldn't describe Jean Chrétien as a neoconservative, even though a lot of his policies differed only in degree from those of, say, Preston Manning or Stephen Harper, but I can't really think of a terribly clear explanation why. And it's not just the party label, either, because I would describe both Gordon Campbell and Jean Charest, also nominal Liberals, as neocons. I'd say there should ultimately be a separate article, rather than a section in Neoconservatism (Canada), but realistically I'm not going to be the first one to write it (although I'll probably add stuff to it if someone else tackles it first). Bearcat 17:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for my lateness with this: like Bearcat says, it's all about usage and the lines are fairly blurry and it requires some care. I've just been mulling over how best to present and organize all this. Samaritan 18:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Formatting lists on federal riding pages[edit]

Thanks for asking, kuri, but I don't really follow those pages (they are just a little too specific for me, but I'm glad that there is a place on the web for people who want that level of detail on Canadian politics), so I don't think my opinion should count for all that much. But since you asked, I actually think that Michaelm's format provides a bit more information - specifically the years an MP sat under each party name. And since these articles provide a pretty fine level of detail, why not include the info? Regards, Kevintoronto 14:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Article creation[edit]

Just a note that I like the articles you created, especially Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Don't forget the external link to the orgs in the articles though. --Spinboy 03:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

To ditto spinboy, good job on CTF and CCLA. I was wondering, though...I'm not all that clear on the distinction between a "political advocacy group" and a "government watchdog group". Could you clarify for me? Bearcat 08:55, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ovide Mercredi[edit]

Hi, unfortunately administrators can't do anything about that, it's a problem with the servers. I've done the same thing myself, actually, and the only solution is to wait until the server problem is fixed. Despite what "what links here" says, all the links to that page will work, and there is only one article despite what the Category page looks like. It looks weird but essentially everything is working properly. Adam Bishop 20:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this issue while discussing another matter with Adam. It's actually possible for admins to fix the multiple listings in categories by deleting the page and then recreating it, so I did that. The article now appears just once on the category list. Unfortunately it didn't fix the "what links here" issue, though. Bearcat 20:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

REAL Women of Canada[edit]

Thanks for your backup on this. I don't know if we'll ever be able to get Michael on the straight and narrow. Kevintoronto 14:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nootka -> Nuu-chah-nulth[edit]

Hi Kurieeto - I've no objection to the reasons for the page move, but it should have been done by using the 'move' (move page) link at the top of the page, so that the page's history and talk page accompany the move, not as a copy & paste. As it is, both have stayed at Nootka. You'll need to ask an administrator to transfer the history and talk page now; post the request at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and/or on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard - Thanks, MPF 11:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

I have created a Request for Comment against User:Michaelm. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Michaelm. Lacrimosus 23:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aboriginal languages[edit]

Hello, I'm not sure that some of the recent changes you've made to several Native American tribes are appropriate. You've categorized among others the Tasttine, Onondaga, and Tsuu T'ina articles to be included in several language-based categories. I feel this is incorrect as those articles are not for the languages of these aboriginals. I think that stubs for the Tasttine language, Onondaga language, and Tsuu T'ina language should be created, and only those should be in the language categories. Please let me know what you think of this proposal. Thanks, Kurieeto 22:16, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, ideally separate articles about the languages should be written, and those should be in the language categories rather than the articles about the tribes. But until that happens, I think it's better to have articles about the tribes in the language categories than nothing at all. That way, if someone is interested in, say, the Onondaga language, they can at least find information about the tribe, which is better than nothing, and maybe be inspired to start an article about the language. --Angr 05:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A pitchure is worth a thousand words[edit]

I think linking to the aboriginal languages map on the Atlas of Canada might be a good idea.

http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/aboriginallanguages

  • By community

http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/aboriginallanguages/bycommunity

  • By ability index

http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/aboriginallanguages/abilityindex

  • By continuity index

http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peopleandsociety/aboriginallanguages/continuityindex

Michaelm[edit]

Fair enough. I am waiting for a response from Michaelm before taking any further action. I won't unilaterally remove the RfC. I encourage you to talk to him directly as well, so he can work to satisfy the various users concerned. Lacrimosus 01:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ignorance in some caseisMichaelm 06:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Good[edit]

My gawrsh...I'm famous! (Or maybe in deep doo-doo, who knows?) (*goofy grin*) Bearcat 04:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of place names in Canada of aboriginal origin[edit]

Your move of “List of places in Canada with First Nations names” to “List of place names in Canada of aboriginal origin” has left me confused. What is most appropriate in the Canadian context -- “aboriginal” or “First Nations?” I thought that in most countries “aboriginal” was fine (like Australia), but in Canada “First Nations” was preferred. Therefore I was surprised you moved the article to a title with “aboriginal”. Also, the first line of the article differentiates First Nations, Métis, and Inuit. Aren’t Inuit a First Nations group? I can understand how Métis can be considered separate from First Nations, therefore names of Métis origin should not be listed in the article, or at least be qualified as such if they are listed. (I could see similar pages like this for several other countries.) Paradiso 02:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful link! These conventions of speech are unfortunately not the naturally assumed meanings, but require clarification, and the site helps. I wonder if it is a good idea to clarify some terms on WP articles that use such terms…maybe I’ll get around to trying it on a few of them and cite this website as a source. Paradiso 03:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Misguided category structure[edit]

Hi Kurieeto, I noticed you are changing the categories on several articles from "Canadian History" to "Métis History", and that you have included Métis history as a subcategory of Canadian history. I believe this is a bad idea for a number of reasons:

  1. Canadian history is a geopolitical category, while Métis is a cultural/ethnological/racial category.
  2. For the above mentioned reasons, there are tons of Métis and Métis-related history in the United states and, I suppose, elsewhere. Métis != Canadian and Canadian != Métis
  3. Several of things you have marked as "Métis history" had a much broader context.. i.e. affected country born, anglo settlers, etc. as well.
  4. Categories in wikipedia is a directed graph, not necessarily a tree- i.e. keep your cat, but do not make it a subcat of Canadian history.

For the same reasons, I dislike your series of Aboriginal peoples of .... categories...it's SO artificial. These people were there long before these boundries were ever imagined... if you want to do it by region, do it by something geographical, not geopolitical - i.e. Aboriginal peoples of the great plains, Aboriginal peoples of the eastern arctic, etc. And frankly I think that having too many subcategories is anyway counterproductive and makes it harder to access what you want... I tend to only advocate subcategories when the main category is getting huge. What do you think? Fawcett5 01:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More category chatter[edit]

Hi Kurieeto, thanks for your explanation of the rationale behind those edits. Apologies for taking so long to respond, but I wanted to think a bit about what you were saying. I see the issue with the Inuit and Métis (and presumably also Innu) being lumped in with the First Nations. Personally, I'm not sure how much of the dillemma arises just from the Government-speak of those guidelines..are these distinctions actually made in practice? Surely we should try and use the terms that people use to self-identify. Personally, I dislike so much subcating, and I would be in favour of replacing them all with a neutral term like Aboriginal peoples of Canada. But I think a lot of people would disagree with this. You might prefer this name for your higher-level category. By the way, I am perfectly comfortable with the cat Métis history, just so long as it is not a subcat of Canadian history - the Jewish Canadian history cat is not a good precedent I think, but notice that it specifically says that it is Jewish CANADIAN history. Even then though, cats like this seem too exclusionary - not very many historically noteworthy events take place that affect only on ethnic group within a country. Anyway, I have my own dillema maybe you can help me with. What is the currently prefered term for English/Scottish-Indian mixed race people? Old (and not-so-old) references usually call them "English half-breeds" or something like that, which seems to me to have an offensive connotation. Other sources refer to them as the "Country born" but this seems old-fashioned. Do you know the modern self-identification term? Fawcett5 00:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First Nations Category[edit]

Hi Kurieeto, that was actually kind of accidental - I was just poking around Canadian people and couldn't find First Nations and had brain-farted that it had gone under ethnic groups - feel free to change it back if you haven't already. Fawcett5 00:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lubicon Cree[edit]

Thanks for pointing out the category overlap. I've removed the Category:Alberta tag from the Lubicon Cree entry. -GrantNeufeld 13:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charities of Canada[edit]

Knock yourself out, I didn't realize there was another cat at the time. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Wikipedian Meet Invite[edit]

I'm inviting all the Wikipedians who are listed as Calgarians to get together for a casual, in-person, chat about Wikipedia and whatever else strikes our fancy.

I've got a Meetup.com group set up that we can use to organize local meets. (the fees are covered for a while by my Meetup+ membership carrying over into the new fee regime.) Please sign up for that group, or post a message to my talk letting me know if/when you might be available for a Wikipedian meet. --GrantNeufeld 02:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Place-names question[edit]

I started a List of place names in New England of aboriginal origin yesterday, and while inspecting maps, I keep wandering into Quebec. I thought I might add to your list for Quebec, but I see my methodology is different - I'm collecting the names, and then hope to find the meanings and origins later, where possible. So I'm wondering if my adds would be more of a problem than a help. Let me know - either way, I don't mind. Thanks. --Mothperson 18:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I've always been fascinated by how bodies of water tend to keep their old names. And I love the syllables, even if their meaning is a mystery to me so far. Words are a nice change from the other lists I'm working on, and it will be a pleasure to try to help with Quebec. And thank you for adding those categories. I am still too much of a newbie to know many of the basics, but I'm learning. --Mothperson 03:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Broken redirects[edit]

Your redirects from Gesca, Gesca Ltée, Gesca Ltd. and [[Gesca Limited to Gesca Limitée are showing up on the Special:BrokenRedirects report. Are you planning to write an article? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 4 July:57 (UTC)

Chippewas of Georgina Island article[edit]

I would like to hear your opinion about the name of the article on the talk page: Talk:Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, Ontario Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian companies[edit]

I've noticed that you've changed a couple of articles (eg. Cathay International Television) by replacing existing "company by economic sector" with Category:Defunct companies of Canada. I really think that those are categories that can co-exist, and that even if a company is defunct, it should still stay in its old (eg. Category:Canadian media companies) category. The "defunct" category should only replace categories that imply that the company is still active, such as the "traded on the TSE" thingy. Bearcat 06:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal[edit]

I suppose I could be wrong, but my own understanding was always that aboriginal is a collective adjective and not itself a proper name, and so in normal writing (as opposed to government officialese, which isn't the same thing) it should only be capitalized in proper names like Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. My understanding of the usage resembles francophone, about which the page you linked is flat-out wrong: in proper English, francophone is only capitalized when it's used in a proper name (eg. Association of Francophone Municipalities of Ontario) and absolutely not when used as an adjective or a common noun (eg. "the francophone community", "he was raised as a francophone".)

I generally hate appealing to official government usage as an authority for proper English formatting (because then you end up with people who think words like "mayor" and "university" are supposed to be capitalized at all times no matter what, which is wrong). I think maybe we should try to find out whether the Canadian Press Styleguide has anything to say about it...? Bearcat 16:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article move[edit]

Thank you for inviting me to have a look at the discussion on the proposed article move (First Nations of Canada => First Nations). I am not certain which is best between First Nations, First Nations (Canada), and First Nations in Canada. I guess I would need to read the Wikipedia policy on this topic to make myself an opinion on this. I will think about it and post my opinion in the talk page this week. -- Mathieugp 18:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First Nations Groupings[edit]

(In reply to your comment on my talk page.)

While I think that groupings by treaty should be included in the Wikipedia, there are many nations that didn't sign treaties, so those groupings would not be comprehensive on their own.

There could also reasonably be groupings by larger nation affiliation - e.g., the various nations, tribes, councils, etc., that are all Cree (I don't know a proper term for this categorization). These would, in some cases, apply across national borders (i.e., there's overlap between Canada and the U.S.).

Another grouping could be by membership/affiliation with groups like the Assembly of First Nations.

But, probably the only way to get a solid coverage would be through geographical groupings. Divided up by province, with some provinces split into sub-regions if there are a large number of nations within their borders. How we split that would be either to have a good idea of what geographic boundaries would make the most sense (which I don't know), or just arbitrarily divide up by numbers (e.g., if there's 60 nations in a province, maybe take the northern 30 and the southern 30 as the sub-groupings).

-GrantNeufeld 21:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, dropping by to check out this discussion, that in BC the groupings are necessarily Coastal, Interior and North. With about 60 groups each (just kidding; more like 30...well, maybe 60...).Skookum1 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kurieeto, I much appreciate your work on First Nations and other aboriginal peoples, but while navigating the Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada, I found things extremely confusing. I would like to make some proposals or suggestions.

  1. First, using Canadian Arctic is a misnomer. Arctic refers either to areas above the Arctic circle or to lands north of the treeline. Most of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are not in the Arctic according to either definition, while parts of Quebec and Labrador are north of the tree line. It probably would be better to rename the category to "Aboriginal peoples in Canada's Territories" or something similar, unless the category is split into the three territories
  2. Secondly, the templates only have individual First Nations governments (i.e. Bands) recognized by INAC. They probably also should refer to First Nations ethnicities or nations. But then, that could make the templates too big. I tried experimenting with this on the Yukon template, but my knowledge of the template "language" is too limited so I made a mess and did not save my edits. If you want to experiment, the Yukon First Nations peoples are: Gwich'in, Kaska, Hän, Northern Turchone, Southern Tutchone, Tagish, Tlingit and Upper Tanana.
  3. As well, we might think of including Tribal Councils in the templates.
  4. I saw you separated the Gwich'in language from the Gwich'in people article. I think this is a good idea and I did the same with the Kaska. The same thing probably should be done with other First Nations in Canada.
  5. Maybe put the aboriginal people provincial/territories categories also as subs of the First Nations Category (not only aboriginal peoples in Canada). I realize this violates some Wikipedia rule, but I believe it would make things easier to find. Alternatively, have sub categories "First Nations in xxx province(s). I am not sure.

Luigizanasi 22:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Kurieeto's reply on my (Luigizanasi) talk page
  1. On categorization: here is a suggestion expanding on yours, hoping it is as clear. It is essentially the same except that the provincial/territorial FN category would be under both the apprpriate "Aboriginal peoples" category and the overall "First Nations" category, & I have added a "Political entities in province/territory" sub-category.
Rather than FN governments (the correct current Yukon usage, as they are a fourth level of government with independent taxation and other powers), we could use, e.g. Category:First Nations political entities in British Columbia. On question I had was where to put reserves? But creating a "political entity" subcat under each provincial/territorial FN cat neatly solves it.
Note that Category: First Nations in province/territory is a sub of both Category:Aboriginal peoples in province/territory and Category:First Nations, which are both subcats of Category: Aboriginal peoples in Canada.
  1. On templates: I hadn't realized you had tribal councils only in BC, while you have individual First Nations governments in the Yukon. Also, I still feel that we should somehow incorporate ethnic groups in the template, as these are likely of being greater interest than individual political entities. On the other hand, I understand that land claims are pursued by Tribal councils in BC, while in the Yukon it is individual First Nations governments. Some Yukon First Nations have formed tribal councils, but they are in the nature of associations rather than political entities with specific powers.

What do you think? Comments welcome, of course. Luigizanasi 04:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll avoid interspersing too many indented responses and try and compile my thoughts here to lessen confusion for later readers. First off I just had a look at the Category:Aboriginal peoples in British Columbia, which I agree needed creation although for now it's on the BC Metis Nation that's so designated; I should point out that there will conceivably be "Metis" (in my area we can still say halfbreed and it's not a rude term, at least not around there except for the most politically tight of the locals, if anyone is) and non-status aboriginal people-articles and culture-articles, possibly other political-org articles (though I'm not sure what); I'm thinking of bios mostly, like Frank Gott, a non-status halfbreed from Lillooet who was a Great War vet/hero. That aside, I had a look at the immediate contents of the "First Nations in BC" category within "Aboriginal peoples of BC" and noted right away that there should be a [[Category:First Nations languages in British Columbia]]; or "aboriginal languages". Thing is language categories are normally arranged by language group/phylum in wikipedia, e.g. Salishan languages, Wakashan languages, Na-Dene languages, and so on. What I'm getting at here is that Babine-Witsuwit'en and its dialects Babine and Witsuwit'en and other language articles curently have "First Nations in British Columbia" for a category; this isn't quite right and I'm not sure what to do about that, other than "First Nations/aboriginal languages in BC"; and yeah, as with Kaska and Kaska language, there's a lot of article-splitting to do, as well as some very delicate political-grouping definitions and culture-history "fitting into the procrustean box" of our categories/definitions that's got to be done (I refer you again to Somena and Talk:Somena for an example of the cross-cultural problem with this; I dread wading into Kwakiutl/Kwakwaka'wakw turf, or figuring out the political "map" of Carrier or Shuswap country....quick flash of momentary inconsequential brilliance: the Gitksan-Wet'su-we'ten hereditary chiefdoms have their own territorial boundaries, as submitted during Delgamuukw....would make a great map!).
I've just gone through the First Nations in BC cat, moving government/councils to First Nations governments in BC; presumably this category should/might also include orgs such as the UBCIC, or maybe there should be a First Nations organizations in BC, which could include things like the fed of friendship centres and such (come to think of it, an article on Friendship Centre would probably be a good thing; I'll ask some friends to come up with some defs for a stub). But for now para-governments like Tribal Councils (which are affiliations of governments, less than governments per se, as far as I've got a handle on it); this leaves out traditional self-definition as with the Somena, who have no legal status and, while a political unit within the Cowichan area, are not an organized thing in the way non-native culture can easily define/label them....ACK...Sorry maybe that wasn't a good idea; I just noticed that something I moved from the main First Nations category already had the First Nations governments category.....should any article have both. OK, maybe I'll back off and chew on this; part of the problem is that the culture/language/government/community articles aren't split up yet. Also, there's items like Pavilion 1, British Columbia, which is itself really Pavilion, British Columbia (not just the reserve/band), the Tskwaylacw First Nation (which belongs to both the Lillooet and Shuswap Tribal Councils, and is ethnically part of both St'at'imc and Secwepemc also); at some point the List of First Nations communities in British Columbia was fleshed out with redlinks of IR names, which doesn't quite work as in the Pavilion case (it's where I found Pavilion 1, British Columbia and a few others like it).Skookum1 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About official governments vs treaty-negotiating orgs, I have to comment that the Tribal Councils in BC are not all-inclusive and simply covering them and their constituent bands won't work; there are also groups that are outside the claims process and so not defined that way at all (ranging from the aforementioned Somena to the St'at'imc, who though legally organized as the Lillooet Tribal Council and also the breakaway In-SHUCK-ch Nation and N'quat'qua (which is a placename/community, and for which there should be a separate N'quat'qua First Nation article, however subtle the distinction), who are in the treaty process; Spuzzum, British Columbia is a community/locality and like other such places there's a Spuzzum First Nation and then there's the place itself; I'll tweak that but I'm beginning to figure out until we delineate all the articles properly, determining categories is actually going to be very hard.....dang, I should have breakfast and a shower and try and be more cogent next time I sit down here; I hope my thoughts have been helpful; but just thinking out loud in response to issues raised by you guys; there's some more but I need some calories....back later.Skookum1 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aside:I have my doubts whether "Salish mythology" should even exist....(just happened to see it; NW mythology is not defined by language alone, and "Salish" is a pretty broad brush in this case, too)



Templates[edit]

Hi Kurieeto,

I like having both First Nations peoples and First Nations governments in the same template, it makes navigation much easier and makes the distinction clear. I only discovered yesterday that using a category on the template page puts the article in the category, and I was going to ask you what you thought of omitting categories from the template pages. Is there any reason why we need to put a category on the template page?Luigizanasi 20:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Three perspectives as considered[edit]

I have no idea what that section title means; I just had to create one, and "three" is in my head because of a note on the Wikiproject:Wikipedia Indigenous peoples of North America project or talk page from User:Luigizanasi concerning my strategization within that project of the need to delineate people, language and government as three separate categories/articles that might be necessary for a given reserve/community/people (this is especially so, as noted in my notes on that page, in the US, where reservations are mixed tribes more often than not, and/or there are competing/rival governments; BC at least has lots of the latter, anyway, i.e. rebel/renegade bands/splitoffs within an ethnic/language area; then there's also things like Somena which relate to "untreatied" peoples (in BC the term is legally undefined, as there are no treaties; or in the Somena's case they weren't described in the Douglas Treaties so "vanished" from the ethnographic landscape, despite still existing as a cultural/political/social unit within the Cowichan Valley Hulquminum-speaking communities (or is that Hunquminum? I always get Halkomelem dialects mixed up....).

Anyway....Luigi directed me here, and it looks like I'm going to have to read over your discussions a bit before I understand exactly where your drift went here. But it's worth commenting on that part of the "problem" is that in Canada "First Nation" in the singular is a government, and in the plural can either be a collection of such governments, or an ethnicity/nation or a band/tribal government (large or small, and may contain or belong to larger/smaller units using the same term); and in many cases it's a truism that there's a "white"-name community, a native-name reserve attached to it, or inseparable from it, a band government, and an ethnicity, all wrapped up into one; but they shouldn't be confused as all belonging to the same article, although a lot of articles currently are in that condition (including Somena and a lot in my turf, the Lillooet country); and in BC the "communities" list (see DRAFT Wikiproject BC Notes many communities are overtly First Nation in character (that usage of First Nation, by the way, is adjectival, so the/an ethnicity is being referred to as opposed to the noun version, where it would necessarily mean a government/people - the distinction between those two being imposed by the outside culture in many cases (again with Somena, which needs huge edits as it's written by a Somena member). So there's Kispiox, British Columbia, Kispiox First Nation, and they happen to be members of the Gitksan, a Tsimshianic-speaking people; the government - the regional government, which like the haudenosaunee maintains it has existed as a state since before Contact - is the Gitskan-Wet'su-wet'en Confederacy, famous for the Delgamuukw vs. the Queen constitutional case. And if there is a "Kispiox language", i.e. a dialect of Gitksan called Kispiox, it's a third article - just venturing by way of example, not suggesting that there is such a demarcation. But there will be a demarcation between the people/society of Kispiox and other Gitksan communities like Hazelton, New Hazelton, Canyon City, and Ksan; and while there's First Nation/band governments in each one, there's also non-natives, so the community exists independently of its writeup as a First Nations community/people/band.

Confusing, huh? Yeah, so I'm going to bed to ponder this some more. Sorry to ramble/think out loud; it's my way......Skookum1 07:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yukon First Nations[edit]

The Dease River First Nation (in Dease Lake, British Columbia) & the Taku River Tlingit First Nation (in Atlin, British Columbia) in the Template:First Nations in the Yukon are not in the the Yukon. They probably got in your list because INAC includes them in their Whitehorse, Yukon office. Also, you missed the Teslin Tlingit Council. I will fix the template, but you might want to add the two to the BC template. Also, some of the names have diacritics (e.g. Kwanlin Dün. Should the diacritics be in the name? Luigizanasi 16:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Native Village Corporations[edit]

The Alaska Native Village Corporations such as Tanadgusix Corporation are not simply Native Alaskan-related, but directly represent tribal villages to the 13 Alaska Native Corporations created by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Thus, moving them from Category:Alaska Native tribes -> Category:Alaska Natives seems to me to broaden their categorization without reason.

Now, I'm not reverting your change, but I am thinking about creating a sub-cat of Category:Alaska Native tribes called Category:Alaska Native Village Corporations (caps are correct, per BIA designation). See List of Alaska Native Tribal Entities for more details. What do you think?

Thanks for your time, and don't let this message make you think that I don't appreciate your efforts here. I do! -Harmil 15:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: indigenous peoples of/in Australia[edit]

Hi Kurieeto. I have replied over there with some initial views in response to your question - cheers!--cjllw | TALK 01:50, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

Native American languages Cfru[edit]

Hi, thank you so much for using {{Cfru}} on these cat's, makes our job much easier. Normally I go and fix them all for easier reference. Thanks again. Who?¿? 22:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship[edit]

Kuri: Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I am honoured that you and others think highly enough of my contributions here to support the nomination. The admin powers will enable me to patrol for vandals more effectively, amongst other things. I promise to use my new powers for good, and not to inflict the retribution on my enemies that they so richly deserve, as tempting as that may be. ;-) Thanks again, Kevin. Ground Zero 12:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Hank Reardon"[edit]

Hi,

Is there some reason that you edited the Somena page to falsely claim that I am the grand-daughter of Hank Reardon? I didn't think Wikipedians were supposed to just make stuff up. Also, I do not serve subpoenas. I run a process service company, in addition to continuing to write as a journalist.So why did you remove all references to articles I have written for the National Post, Winnipeg Free Press, Vancouver Province and the Cowichan Valley Citizen? I've changed the article back to it's original form, including the cite's from newspapers I have written for and removing the false statement of yours that "Hank Reardon" was my grandfather. My great-grandfather was Henry Williams. But, I find it unlikely that you would know about that.. and so I can only conclude that you were being extremely dishonest with your *edits*

  • apologies*... I am relatively new to Wiki, and came across the grafitti on my page, and tried to track down where it came from, and yours was the first page I saw in the history that had the false edits. Sorry for jumping the gun there. It clearly was not you, but some other person... and I've got some pretty good gueses as to who. Again. I am sorry. I'll spend some more time trying to figure out how this history of edits page works.

Best Regards -(anon edits by 68.84.255.199)

It is considered polite on Wikipedia to assume good faith on the part of editors until proven otherwise. In this case, we could assume for example that the edit was made based on a flawed source. It would be appropriate to simply correct the material, citing better sources or to request that the author provide source citations. Claiming to be an authoritative source yourself (e.g. the article is about you) doesn't help Wikipedia much, since anyone could make such a claim. Removing unsubstantiatable information is another option of course, but I suggests bringing that up on the talk page in question first. Asking something like "why did you falsely claim that..." is argumentative, and puts an editor on the defensive rather than fostering cooperative work on Wikipedia.
All that aside, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you decide create an account and to stay and contribute further! -Harmil 15:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, thanks...I'm an old usenet acquaintance of Jimbo, and just started to look around recently to dig into Wiki and see how it works. I made the entry about Somena a long time ago, and haven't been back since. The reason I suspect that the edit was *intentionally* dishonest is the date where it took place, as well as the use of "Hank Reardon" in the edit. Hank Reardon is a character in an Atlas Shrugged novel. I was involved in a blog-flame war with some creeps on/around the date that this edit occured, and it would appear that the folks on the other side of the aisle decided to take their little insults over to Wiki to carry the flame war on there. There is nothing "unintentional" about making a claim that somebody who is a student of objectivism is the grand-daughter of Henry Reardon. I would ordinarly give somebody the benefit of a doubt. I agree, it's the best policy.

Thanks for taking the time to comment and welcome me. This is an amazing thing.. Wiki.

I think User:The Tom's original intention is probably a better idea, but would still favour a rename (albeit a different one than you proposed). How about renaming it to Category:First Nations politicians instead, with a separate subcategory for Category:First Nations band chiefs (or an alternate wording if more appropriate)? Bearcat 00:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation[edit]

Hi, Good work with the navigational templates. Would you be interested in joining WikiProject Business and Economics?. To do so, just list yourself as a participant. Thanks. --PamriTalk 02:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KTVX[edit]

You have received this message because you have edited a Salt Lake City media article in the past. We have recently had an edit war regarding the wording and inclusion of a paragraph on the KTVX article. In hopes of resolving this I have put together an informal survey. If you are interested, please stop by Talk:KTVX and add a vote. Thanks, A 09:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational templates[edit]

Thanks for the comment. I've started a discussion about this on Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates; I'd like to know more of your opinion on it. - Brian Kendig 00:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

The relevent guideline is WP:CSL. Simply put, the fact that the corporate templates got out of control (And Microsoft is not the worst offender - that dubious honor goes to Disney) does not mean that the widespread adoption of them is good. Simply put, TfD is not a vote, and the voices that were reasonably engaging with the issues and accepted guidelines made a strong case for the splitting of the template. That they were drowned out by people who wanted their pet shiny boxes to survive regardless of accepted guidelines is, to my mind, irrelevent. Phil Sandifer 06:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarket categories[edit]

Could I trouble you to reconsider your vote on the supermarkets categories on Categories for deletion. Renaming them all "in" would not be standardisation as the policy for companies is that the "of" form should be used. Thank you. Carina22 00:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethnic groups in"[edit]

I recently completed renaming the list of "Ethnic groups of" to "Ethnic groups in" you proposed at WP:CFD. I wasn't involved in the discussion at all, but going through these, it would appear that some were left out, I'm assuming by accident. Ones that aren't localized to a country such as Category:Ethnic groups of Africa (see also Category:Ethnic groups for more). I'm not sure if this was done on purpose or what, but if they need to be renamed, you should probably compile another list and add them to the list of requests for speedy renames (note Dec 8 as precedent). Thanks. K1Bond007 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BAE Systems[edit]

Hi. I've nominated BAE Systems for a peer review and as you've edited the article in the past I just thought I'd let you know in case there was any comment you wished to make. Regards, Mark83 00:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat[edit]

My apologies; I thought the pipe in the Nestle category with nothing following it was a typo; I didn't realise it had that meaning. Fourohfour 15:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! :) Kurieeto 16:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the "revert" referred to the version before yours (we were cross-editing, although I didn't notice until later); but I guess you'd already figured that out. :) Fourohfour 21:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slogan field on Infobox Company[edit]

I've temporarily taken it out as there's been no discussion to overturn the consensus of omitting it

Try this Template talk:Infobox Company#Slogan field?. Looks pretty conclusive to me. Ian3055 22:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that means that no one felt the need to stand up for it then? If no one felt the need to challenge what others had said surely there is no point in requiring such a discussion. Ian3055 23:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if there is further talk, and it emerges that people dont think it should be in then thats fine - although it would be good to get this one settled finally. I had thought I was helping to do that but I hadent really thought about a couple of the points you raised. Personally I think it adds to our understanding of a company's perspective and aims, but thats for another day. Ian3055 23:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for Deletion[edit]

Hello, I am requesting assistance for keep the following templates...

What must I do to keep the templates available???

WIKISCRIPPSUltimate SAT MAR:55 PM EST / 5:55 PM UTC

Taxation[edit]

R U an accountant ? SirIsaacBrock 02:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cfd tags on categories[edit]

Hey, you came to the right person for bot work! I responded in depth on my talk page. --Cyde Weys 22:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, providing a full dump of the Perl script I used to fulfill your request may have been too much depth, lol. --Cyde Weys 22:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category renaming under the radar[edit]

Just noticed that for several days this has been sitting on CFD. (there was no {{cfr}} used on the page itself, so that might explain it being generally missed). None of the category regulars seem to have weighed in, and I must confess to be a little displeased with the lack of understanding for the bigger picture expressed thus far. Care to take a look? The Tom 23:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian goods category[edit]

I think the Avro Arrow doesn't really sit well in this category which appears to be chiefly about income generating goods and a failed aircraft project that was never sold to anyone doesns't really come into it. Bombardier jets on the other hand... GraemeLeggett 11:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universities and colleges[edit]

I think most universities and colleges have a charitable foundation as part of their organizational structure (for fundraising, community involvement, etc.), but I'm not sure the institutions themselves are considered charities — do you have a clearer source? (The link you provided went to a "your session has expired" error page.) Bearcat 00:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cat[edit]

I have moved List of people by self-identifying anthropological category to User:Kurieeto/sandbox. Perhaps I am slow witted but I have absolutley no idea what a "self-identifying anthropological category" is. Before you move the article back, please make sure that you explain very carefully for the dimmest of intellects what exactly you mean by a "self-identifying anthropological category". -- RHaworth 19:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RHaworth - In regard to list of people by self-identifying anthropological category, I based the article title off of Category:Anthropological categories of people, which has existed since December of 2005. It contains sub-cats like Ethnic groups and Race. The intent of the article is to provide a space for the listing of individuals when they have publically self-identified as part of a ethnicity, race, nationality, etc. Would listing Category:Anthropological categories of people under a See also section of the article provide enough clarity in regard to what is meant by the article's title? Kurieeto 19:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Put the explanation above at the start of the article and, against each person, state what anthropological category they have identified themselves as belonging to! -- RHaworth 20:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the article title to List of people who have self-identified to an anthropological category, and have described the point of the article a bit more there. Kurieeto 20:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. At least I see what you mean now. I shall leave it for a while because I think it will get marked for AfD as "list cruft". -- RHaworth 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of category:Anthropological categories of people[edit]

I have pointed out in the discussion that Category:Anthropological categories is a duplicate of Category:Anthropology, which contains a wide range of categories which are not about peoples. Osomec 13:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-related stub categories[edit]

Hi Kurieeto - I can't recall exactly when the discussions relating to this took place... Looking at the SFD archive for October 2005, I think this was after "-related" was being removed from country-specific categories (e.g., Category:Argentina-related stubs), but before it was extended to cover all stub categories. I think it could have been in the "Other business" section we used to have on the WP:WSS proposals page. Ah! Found some of it - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/Archive7#Other_stub-related_discussions. That at least covers the country-related "-related"s. Grutness...wha? 07:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were the original author of that article. If you are still interested in it, I wonder if you would mind weighing in on the debate as to whether teams like the Kansas City Chiefs and Boston Celtics belong in it. I think the article's title is contributing to the confusion. I think it should be "List of sports team names and mascots whose symbols are indigenous peoples". Wahkeenah 11:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

When can we say we reached consensus ? --yongblood 17:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for fast answer. --yongblood 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Ism[edit]

"Kurieetoism"! I love it, thanks David! :) Kurieeto 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckle - just one letter away from "Kuriee-taoism"!  Best wishes, David Kernow 16:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish demonyms[edit]

Hello, Kurieeto. The international demonyms will be renamed en bloc. This is just a note to say that the Scottish demonyn categories were objected to as a late nomination, and I have not included them in the closure of this CFD consensus. Do please feel free to nominate the four Scottish demonyms again in another CFD. Best wishes, RobertGtalk 08:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People from Foo[edit]

I think we're using the from to generally mean associated with. I actually prefer the People of Foo, but that's not what happened. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bot requests - met your request[edit]

I have met your hospital-related request. Let me know if you need any further assistance. alphaChimp laudare 17:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no worries. Coincidentally, it wasn't actually a bot, it was done semi-manually (I approved all the changes). I'm sort of tired of waiting weeks for approvals in WP:BRFA. alphaChimp laudare 17:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Service awards[edit]

Hi Kurieeto! In recognition of your long and extensive editing, you are entitled to these WP:SERVICE awards, and may display both, either, or neither, according to your liking. Herostratus 02:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is an Established Editor, and is entitled to display this Established Editor Badge
File:Wikipedia book.jpg
This editor is a Grognard Extraordinary, and is entitled to display this Book of Wikipedia

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Beyond (magazine), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Beyond (magazine). You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Mike Christie (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Saw that you were the one who created this category; currently so far it has only Chillwack, Vancouver and Prince George on it, and of course there are more capital-c cities. I'm a little wary of the title in applying this cat to District Municipalities, Towns and Villages, though, which should also be categorized as being on the river; Category:Communities on the Fraser River might work better, or something else along those lines - "Municipalities" won't work either, as that's a legal-incorporation category like Town, Village, City. Other cities are Abbotsford, Surrey, Delta, Richmond, New Westminster, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam; but I'll hold off on putting the cat into them pending any possible/suggested change of name to something more viable to all "cities" along the Fraser; incorporated communities could be the limit, so tiny places aren't cluttering up the Category; or maybe they should (Spuzzum, Seabird Island, Deroche, Siska, Soda Creek, Big Bar Creek (aka Big Bar Ferry) etc.Skookum1 08:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title change needed on {{tl:Ktunaxa Kinbasket Treaty Council}}[edit]

Hi; just going through un-made First Nations/bands pages, making them, tweaking them, and came across your template for the Ktunaxa....thing is, there's a difference between a Tribal Council and a Treaty Council (don't ask, it's complicated, even if the membership is largely the same; the Treaty Council is Canada-only for one thing, while the Tribal Council spans the border into MT and ID). Anyway, I don't know what the procedure is for re-jigging the name of a template, but if this is to fit with the pattern of all the other Tribal Council templates then the template-name should be "Tribal Council", not "Treaty Council". In some cases treaty councils are subsets of a tribal council, e.g. with the Kwakwaka'wakw and Nuu-chah-nulth there are two groups within each; and Treaty Council; long background to all this (see Talk:OldManRivers; anyway, I saw that you created the template in question and figured it should be you I ask. There are issues with various other templates (especially {{First Nations on Vancouver Island}} (see its talkpage - basically once again it's awkward because it spans at least four separate tribal councils, and spills over onto non-Vancouver Island bands like the Tsawataineuk First Nation, who are mainland/Broughton Archipelago; in the Vancouver Island case I think it needs to be four or so different templates, using Tribal Councils as the guiding principle; and of course there are bands that don't belong to a tribal council, or tiny tribal councils like the In-SHUCK-ch Nation; also one is needed for the Fraser Canyon Indian Administration, which despite its name is a tribal council (Nlaka'pamux).

A different solution to tribal council-only templates would be to break them down by culture/language group so that the Pacheedaht could be on the Nuu-chah-nulth-aht template (Nuu-chah-nulth-aht is the full form of "Nuu-chah-nulth people" and can include the Pacheedaht, who otherwise "define themselves differently" from the Nuu-chah-nulth as a name, which is associated with the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, and also the N'quatqua Firt Nation re St'at'imc or Alkali Lake First Nation re the Secwepemc and Tsilhqot'in....but then you have bands that belong to two, or bi-cultural tribal councils like the Carrier-Chilcotin Tribal Council.......yeah, I know it's confusing - even OldManRivers thinks so, and he's Skxwxu7mesh and Kwakwaka'wakw ethnically....the templates are a good thing; I'm just asking for consistency; doesn't seem like we can get all the stand-alones into them, short of a major rethink (Squamish, Sechelt, N'quatqua, Pacheedaht, High Bar, and quite a few others actually....).Skookum1 01:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location Maps[edit]

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:20 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Destruction[edit]

An editor has nominated Destruction, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destruction and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anishinaabemowin language Userbox[edit]

Aaniin, with great effort from User:Miskwito, we now have the oj series of Anishinaabemowin language userboxes. On the WP:IPNA/Nish page, we have a matrix of the possible categories for the oj series and the major dialect groupings. You can now add to your Userpage one of the oj userboxes that are available or you can help create a userbox for the dialect of your interest. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Babel#Ojibwe_language_userboxes for the full discussion. Miigwech. CJLippert 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Captions[edit]

Hope to see you back from wikibreak soon. I agree with your suggested removal of the caption exception for company/product logos - Wikipedia_talk:Captions#Logo_captions. I would like to restart the discussion and adjust the guideline. It seems to cause a lot of conflict not only with the rest of the caption guideline but the more important Wikipedia policy: WP:NPOV#Bias - commercial; WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation - assert facts; WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone - selection & organization of facts--In1984 21:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Health risks up for deletion[edit]

Hello, Seeing as you worked on Category:Health risks and created two related categories, I thought you might want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_1#Category:Health_risks. I myself have not yet figured out what to recommend, partly because I'm not sure I fully understand or agree with the way those three categories are currently structured. So I would be interested in seeing your thoughts on the subject. The discussion is in its fifth day now, so the sooner you join the discussion the better! Cgingold 14:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death in the USA[edit]

Hi Kurieeto,

Death, Desire and Loss in Western Culture is written by British writer, referring solely to Europeans in his book. The book is a typical representative of continental philosophy. The western culture is only mentioned once despite its prominent appearance in the title. So, it is debatable wether this article belongs in the category of 'Death in the United States'.--Daanschr 13:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of Native Americans[edit]

List of Native Americans, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of Native Americans satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Native Americans (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of Native Americans during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Leuko 18:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hectomillionaires[edit]

Thanks for your comments. However l won't be nominating the "Billionaires" category for deletion because the term is more widely used, plus there is usually significant verifiable proof in non-trivial sources to confim that someone is a billionaire. Also, one can be a billionaire if he/she has $1 billion or $999,999,999,999.99. It is in fact a much more notable rank of status than either "hectomillionaire" or even "millionaire", especially when we're getting close to the point where one needs to be a millionaire in order to even retire comfortably. Your comment that such a list should specify US dollars, etc. also shows why it's unworkable. If I had time I would in fact nominate the list you cited by way of example for AFD. Cheers! 23skidoo 02:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article List of S&P 500 companies whose boards of directors are composed exclusively of men, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon 86, Saskatchewan[edit]

I see you have a history of working on the article Gordon 86, Saskatchewan. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 19:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Health and medical strikes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category naming conventions for landforms[edit]

Hello. Twice in 2006 you proposed that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Landforms be revised from "Category:(landform) of (country)" to "Category:(landform) in (country)".

I happen to agree that some landforms such as rivers and lakes should use "in (country)". Because of the current rules we have oddities such as canals being "in" a country (Category:Canals in England), but rivers being "of" a country (Category:Rivers of England). It seems that nothing ever changed after your May 2006 proposal. Were there discussions held in other locations that prevented these changes? If not, I was considering bringing this up again at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories). -- Zyxw (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous peoples of the Americas[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Indigenous peoples of the Americas, 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 should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BillH (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Health specialties[edit]

Category:Health specialties, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Global H2O Resources[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Global H2O Resources, 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 should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Global H2O Resources[edit]

I have nominated Global H2O Resources, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global H2O Resources. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Gwernol 13:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Brand name alcohol products[edit]

Category:Brand name alcohol products and Category:Brand name beverage products, which you created, have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Food organizations[edit]

Category:Food organizations, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You had contributed to the editing of the BBC documentary on the Health Fallout of the 9/11 attacks. Someone has set in motion the process to delete the article. Thought you might be interested in preserving the article. Here's the page for discussing the proposal to delete the article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallout: The Health Impact of 9/11 Dogru144 (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Determinants of health[edit]

Category:Determinants of health, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of broken election promises (Canada)[edit]

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. KuyaBriBriTalk 18:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Newspapering by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Newspaper endorsements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Kurieeto! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,621 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Gwendolyn King - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. J. R. Shaw - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  3. Russell Mills (publisher) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  4. Paul Desmarais, Jr. - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The article Sun Belt Water has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of notability, no actual business operation

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.   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Canadian political offices by salary has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Trivial intersection, WP:NOTSTATS

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Resolute 03:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I was wondering if you were planning on doing anything with Template:Treaty 6 First Nations in Alberta, which is currently unused and populated with many red links. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Transportation companies of Canada[edit]

Category:Transportation companies of Canada, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Advertising-free websites[edit]

Category:Advertising-free websites, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 03:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Health specialties 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, 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 the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Karl.brown (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Health effectors[edit]

Category:Health effectors, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. KarlB (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Health effector for deletion[edit]

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. KarlB (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Canada Foundation for Innovation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Just a mission statement. No encyclopedic content and no sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kilopi (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Personifications of death in American media, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. allixpeeke (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back younder, you created the article Health and medical strikes, which I have renamed List of health and medical strikes. This is a fairly interesting topic and I was wondering if you'd be interested in expanding it with me? LT910001 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Medical organization[edit]

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

Unreferenced and lacking in useful content. Below dictionary standard.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2004 budget of the municipal government of Toronto[edit]

The article 2004 budget of the municipal government of Toronto has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Like 1999 budget of the municipal government of Toronto, this a copy of a primary source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organisations based in Hyderabad, India has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Organisations based in Hyderabad, India, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (List of prisons in Canada) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating List of prisons in Canada, Kurieeto!

Wikipedia editor Elliot321 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This is a useful article, and I'm surprised it hasn't been reviewed already!

To reply, leave a comment on Elliot321's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Elliot321 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Treaty 4 First Nations in Saskatchewan[edit]

Template:Treaty 4 First Nations in Saskatchewan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nicola Tribal Association[edit]

Template:Nicola Tribal Association has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Business Council of Canada for deletion[edit]

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Isingness (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:WarnerMedia[edit]

Template:WarnerMedia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Norzan Enterprises requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. SITH (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Health awareness days has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Health awareness days, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:First Nations in Prince Edward Island[edit]

Template:First Nations in Prince Edward Island has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Trialpears (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of people on multiple governing boards 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/List of people on multiple governing boards 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. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Template:WarnerMedia[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:WarnerMedia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.246.136.10 (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

The article First Nations in Atlantic Canada has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This topic is better served on a province-by-province basis. This appears to be a project of an editor that started in 2005 and didn't get very far, and said editor hasn't contributed since 2010.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PKT(alk) 17:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

The article Mark Mullins (economist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, doesn’t meet wp:NECONOMIST

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GameOfAwesome (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]