User talk:Otduff

I've done a lot of editing just from ip's and finally after a couple years I finally started an account to keep track via watchlist. Anyway, talk here if you don't like something I edited!

Entourage

I wanted to thank you for your contributions to the Entourage related articles and I wanted to let you know that there is currently a proposal to form an Entourage related WikiProject. If you would be interested in joining such an endeavor please add your name to the proposal and the temporary project page. Argash | talk | contribs 04:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky_Marciano&diff=84761896&oldid=84760741 This was most correct version, this idiot today reverted everything under umbrella of POV, which is not, go there and see what can be done to be reverted to this version. Everything has been deleted, the bio looks pathetic now, also, do you know any good sports administrators, so we can return to correct version? Today Nov 1st the page has been terribly vandalized. They do not know any history.

Samuel Johnson Page Move Proposal

You gave an early opinion that helped decide the Robert Johnson move proposal. I am continuing work on the Johnsons. I would appreciate your opinion on the following: Samuel Johnson → Dr. Samuel Johnson —(Discuss) Since the Feb 2006 page move, 6 new entries have been added to the Samuel Johnson (disambiguation) page including Sam Houston Johnson, a Presidential sibling, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Jr., a Presidential father, Samuel Ealy Johnson, Sr., a Presidential grandfather, Samuel Johnson (footballer), an active footballer, and Samuel Curtis Johnson, Sr. the patriarch of the richest family in Wisconsin. The primacy of Dr. Samuel Johnson versus the remaining field of Samuel Johnsons should be reconsidered. This move would enable replacement of the dab page at Samuel Johnson TonyTheTiger 22:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

College Football

Hello, I noticed that you have edited a College football related article. You may be interested to know that there is a college football WikiProject which you can join if you like. We would love to have you! --Tlmclain | Talk 14:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn Tigers football‎

I agree the {{NCAAFootballSchool}} infobox is a bit wide; I've proposed narrowing it at the template talk. AUTiger » talk 15:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of All-Conference

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on All-Conference, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because All-Conference is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting All-Conference, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BAFL Teams

Hey there, thanks very much for fixing the BAFL templates, I didn't realise I'd altered them with my edits. :)

I'm currently working through all the Premier division articles, cutting out the self-promotion spiels and making them all conform to some sort of cross-division format.

Do you know if there is A British American Football wikiproject or something similar I can join? Man from the Ministry 19:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Man. Your edits have been completely constructive and you seem to be doing a good job making everything uniform. I have been trying to clean things up also - certainly appreciate the help! As for a wikiproject, I don't think there is...at least that I know of. Keep up the good work and let me know if I can help! --otduff ^t/_c 21:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SuperLiga.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:SuperLiga.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

I notice you are inserting flag icons indicating places of birth. As per WP:FLAGBIO, please do not do this. Thanks. Atlantabravz (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed after they started to be reverted by Latics. I saw this on other coach articles (Brian Kelly, etc) so will go through and start to clean these up. --otduff ^t/_c 00:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Otduff! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. 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 this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 99 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Tommie Agee (American football) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Invicta Logo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Invicta Logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:CurrentAuburnFBCoaches

Template:CurrentAuburnFBCoaches has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the navbox should be deleted because it provides a useful linking between related articles, which is the whole point for any navbox. I think it is similar to how NFL teams have navbox for their coaches or how college football teams have a navbox with all their former headcoaches or how a college team has a navbox with links to all individual season articles (ie 2008 Auburn team, 2009 Auburn team, etc). Basically, as long as all these articles exist then the above navbox template serves a useful function and doesnt seem unnecessary. --otduff ^t/_c 00:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jay Boulware

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

Assistant football coaches are rarely notable per WP:CFBCOACH. Merge information into team article.

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. Zwilson14 (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Boulware is not notable because he is not a head coach. First, he has been a coordinator at several schools and is currently the special teams coordinator at Auburn (in addition to being a position coach). I think coordinators, assistant-headcoaches and headcoach-in-waiting are all notable assistants that deem their own articles. There is so much movement within the coaching ranks that today's assistant is tomorrow's head coach (and vice versa). This is always the case for NFL articles where there are many many position coach articles (ie QB coach) in addition to coordinators and head coaches. I think the major college football level is just as popular/notable as the NFL in many parts of the United States, thus I think it should be treated the same. And if the NFL assistant coach articles are not going to be removed then I don't think well-written articles for major college football assistants should be removed. They are constantly interviewed by media, quoted in newspapers, shown on television....I think that certainly shows notability. --otduff ^t/_c 00:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Phillip Lolley

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

Assistant football coaches are rarely notable per WP:CFBCOACH. Merge information into team article.

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. Zwilson14 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in that he is notable for being a well-known, long-term high school coach in the state of Alabama. I think it is similar to other notable high school coaches like Rush Propst or Joey Jones. There are many many high school head coaching articles from guys in other states (Texas, Ohio, etc) that I have never heard of but that doesn't mean they are not notable or worthy of being encyclopedic. Lolley has also been a long-term assistant coach at the major college football level which I think passes notability. ---otduff ^t/_c 00:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Trooper Taylor

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

Assistant football coaches are rarely notable per WP:CFBCOACH. Merge information into team article.

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. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trooper Taylor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable assistant college football coach, fails WP:N and WP:GNG. College football project essay WP:CFBCOACH also concludes that assistant coaches are normally not notable. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep forgive me if I am a little rough at this, this is my first time trying to involve myself in a Wikipedia issue. WP:CFBCOACH concludes that assistant coaches are not normally notable, but may be if "assistant coaches ... were significantly involved in a noteworthy event" Would you remove your call to delete the page if I were to include information on his significant involvment in a national championship team? Would you consider it a significant event if while coaching at Auburn, he filed suit against the Auburn Public Schools? If I edited the article with these, and supported it with sources, would that rise to the level of "significant involvment in a noteworthy event?" Additionally, I would like to argue that assistants should be considered notable because they meet the criterion listed as the reason why head coaches are notable. They have some of the highest salaries on campus, media coverage, the University markets them, they move to new schools, etc. However, the college football notability talk page only discusses the notability of players, games, and seasons. Not coaches. How do I add that discussion to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aub2010bcsnc (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Welcome newbie! Adding a discussion is simple and you are very welcome to do so! Visit whatever page you want to discuss, and click on the "discussion" tab at the top. You can then add and crerate discussions as you would like, just as you did here! Be sure to "sign" your posts as well by adding "--~~~~" at the end.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I dont think that Taylor has done enough in his career to be notable. Being a coach on a good team doesnt make you notable and the suit about his son is even less notable. He may be known very well around Auburn just like Scott Cochran at Alabama but he is not nationally known. Zwilson14 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I certainly do not think assistant coaches are inherently notable, but Taylor is fairly widely known for his association with Auburn and I think he meets notability standards through WP:GNG for extensive media coverage. As for saying he isn't nationally known; anecdotally, I can say that I personally do not follow SEC football particularly close, yet knew who he was. Here is some media coverage focused primarily on Taylor: ESPN: Auburn's towel-waving Taylor keeps things loose (AP story), Trooper Taylor offered chance to coach at alma mater Baylor (AP story); USA Today: Vols assistant Taylor says he didn't expect a shot at being offensive coordinator (AP story); The Times-Picayune (New Orleans): Trooper Taylor reaches mountaintop at Auburn; The Victoria Advocate (Victoria, Tx): Coaching road leads Taylor to Tennessee; Press-Register (Mobile, Al): Auburn's Trooper Taylor gets to know players, Wide receivers coach Trooper Taylor says freshman DeAngelo Benton will rewrite record books, Auburn assistant head coach Trooper Taylor's son suing local school district over coach's hair policy; The Tennessean (Nashville): Taylor counting on Meachem; Ledger-Enquirer (Columbus, Ga): Taylor returns to familiar place; The Birmingham News (Al): Auburn's Trooper Taylor will play freshman wide receivers; The Chattanoogan (Tn): Trooper Taylor Joins Oklahoma State Staff As Co-Offensive Coordinator; Waco Tribune: Ex-BU standout Trooper Taylor to coach at Oklahoma State; Tulsa World (Ok): OSU's Taylor headed to Auburn; Times-Daily (Florence, Al): Taylor hopes all-SEC snub motivates Adams, Taylor had 'vibe' before leaving (AP story); The Anniston Star (Al): Taylor returning to Tenn. roots; WATE (Knoxville, Tn): Trooper Taylor staying in Knoxville?; WHNT (Al): Trooper Taylor is Auburn's towel-waving, chestbumping dynamo (AP story); Daily Oklahoman (Oklahoma City): OSU's Trooper Taylor joins Curtis Luper at Auburn Strikehold (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage cited above by Strikehold consists of non-trivial coverage on Taylor in multiple mainstream media outlets and establishes his notability. Cbl62 (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that most assistant coaches are probably not noteworthy but I disagree with Taylor. He was formerly an Offensive Coordinator and is currently the Assistant Head Coach. I think any major college football coach that is a coordinator or assistant-headcoach or headcoach-in-waiting, etc are all noteworthy as long as the article is well-written. I think the Trooper Taylor and Jay Boulware articles merit that. Also consider that major college football has a similar following (ie importance) to the NFL in many parts of the country and there are multiple assistant coach articles for every NFL team. Even guys who are just QB coaches or line coaches, etc. And I have no problem with that because there is a HEAVY turnover amongst coaches and yesterdays assistant is tomorrows head coach (Hue Jackson and Josh McDaniels are just one of this weeks assistant->headcoach or head->assistant moves). Again, if the article is well-written and sourced, I think the article should stay. The same for former notable high school coaches...the state of Alabama has many like Rush Propst, Joey Jones or Phillip Lolley. Other states have high school coaches as well that somebody deemed encyclopedic enough to write about....I have never heard of the guys but that doesn't mean they aren't notbable enough for inclusion. Again, non of these assistant coaches that have been nominated for deletion merit removal in my opinion! --otduff ^t/_c 00:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For what it's worth, I'm a casual football fan and I've heard of him. He appears in enough third-party sources to be considered notable. This isn't just your run-of-the-mill assistant coach. HeartSWild (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I count them like associate professors--non-notable unless proved otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree they are not notable unless proven otherwise (which I believe I did), but that is not really a good comparison. Full professors are not considered automatically notable, whereas Division I head coaches are. Strikehold (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enaugh third-party sources. Agathoclea (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the general notability guidelines. Xajaso (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Amazing. Some Wikipedian's think that Wikipeida has become too good to waste its time and space on what reliable sources have clearly spend their time and used their space to cover. It is irrelevant if a Wikipedian thinks that Taylor has not done enough in his career to have been written about in the reliable sources. The reliable sources widely covered and cover this guy's every life move making the topic cearly meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone needs to close this one, it's an obviouis keep (and behind schedule) ... what gives?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Michael Dyer

It doesnt matter that he wants to be called Mike. Do you even have a source for that? He is listed as Michael on the official Auburn bio, ESPN.com and many other sites. The article can be changed to Mike Dyer if those websites make the change because as of right now Michael is his common name.--Yankees10 01:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's something the beatwriters and any Auburn fan knows. It is documented in this article from early September. I don't see what your point is about common name because we do the same with Bo Jackson versus Vincent. And there are many many such examples...what the player prefers is probably the logical choice. And I recall in past articles where the articles were renamed when the person in question chose to associate themselves under another name. In other words, the person picks the name...not some stat website you link to. BTW, even ESPN articles now use Mike in lieu of Michael. --otduff ^t/_c 02:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So one article says he wants to go by Mike and we make the change? No thats not how it works. He is Michael on the official Auburn site and almost every other site. And yes ESPN still does have him as Michael.[1] If these websites make the change to Mike then thats when the change is made.--Yankees10 02:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly what we do. Those other websites can be wrong. We have absolutely renamed articles in the past based on the player deciding to change his last name to his mother's maiden name. If you keep being a pain, then I can look it up and find but it was almost exactly like this situation (ESPN and all the other stat pages still listed the old name but all articles from that point forward were correct). Similarly, almost every recent news article uses Mike. See The Oregonian, The Birmingham News. The Huntsville Times, ESPN, etc. The Associated Press is calling him Mike Dyer also. I think that shows a consensus using Mike Dyer. The page you are linking to are the profile pages that have been that way since last Spring...I am sure they will update in the off-season. This really isn't worth all the effort guy - the kid's name is Mike Dyer. You really should move on. --otduff ^t/_c 02:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok moving on. I really dont give a shit anymore.--Yankees10 02:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be moving the article to Mike Dyer (American football) per this:Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople).--Yankees10 02:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but it would have been really nice had you just renamed my article (if naming convention was the true motive) and left yours as a redirect from Michael Dyer to prevent it from ever being created again. After all, mine was the original, was more thorough, had more links, etc. At some point I will go and rename my article and revert yours accordingly but I really don't understand what was so wrong with the article I wrote 3 months prior to the one you just wrote? As I said, the original is much more complete and well-written. --otduff ^t/_c 03:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Hello, please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles as you did with Trooper Taylor. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Per policy, the notice stays on the article until the discussion is formally closed. Thank you. CutOffTies (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if the removal was premature but the discussion on the article removal seemed to be at a consensus to keep as only one person voted to remove. --otduff ^t/_c 18:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. A closing admin is the one who finishes it. I know it's kind of ugly for the article to have that tag, but should be gone soon enough. Here's the text from the policy linked above:

After seven days of discussion, a volunteer will move the day's list of deletion discussions from the active page to the /Old page. Depending on the backlog, it may sit there for several more days, during which it is still acceptable to add comments to the discussion. Another volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached on the fate of the article. --CutOffTies (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Scot Loeffler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Student assistant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Invicta Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Invicta Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Birmingham Bulls (American football) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Birmingham Bulls (American football) 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/Birmingham Bulls (American football) 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sean Alexander

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

Decent discography as a producer, but no reliable sourcing found

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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sean Alexander for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sean Alexander 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/Sean Alexander 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Runningback U listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Runningback U. Since you had some involvement with the Runningback U redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. JohnInDC (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Otduff. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Geneva Watch Group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Geneva Watch Group 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/Geneva Watch Group 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. RedUser (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Karibi Dede for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Karibi Dede 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/Karibi Dede 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. Chetsford (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Texas Sports Hall of Fame has been nominated for discussion

Category:Texas Sports Hall of Fame, which you created, has been nominated for conversion into a list. 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. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ross Bridge Golf Resort and Spa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ross Bridge Golf Resort and Spa 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/Ross Bridge Golf Resort and Spa 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.

Daask (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]