User talk:Timbracks13

Hello, Timbracks13, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent contributions

Hi Timbracks! I just thought I'd leave a note with some feedback on your recent contributions. First of all, I'd just like to say that I'm impressed with your content work. It's great to see new editors dive in so strongly in writing new content, and although it seems some of your articles may not meet the relevent notability guidelines, please don't let this discourage you: we're always keen to have new editors. I should, however, suggest that you may want to change the way you are dealing with some of the conflicts you've encountered. Typically, editors are encouraged to use talkpages rather than reverts to discuss content disputes, and there is a general principle that once a new change is contested and reverted, it should be discussed rather than re-added (see WP:BRD). As an example, you should perhaps take your concerns at Lee Rhiannon to the talkpage, as I think you'll find the discussion will lead to a better outcome.

As for Timeshift9's userpage, while I agree that the content there is not particularly appropriate, it's generally considered poor manners to "template" experienced contributors, and this can often unnecessarily escalate conflict. Timeshift has seen the warning: my advice would be to wait for an uninvolved administrator to review your deletion tagging, and then take it from there. If there's anything I can help you with, or you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask at my talkpage. -- Lear's Fool 03:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for that explanation Lear's Fool. Sorry for the tag on TimeShift's page but I tried to talk to him about it first, and he simply deleted my comments. Timbracks13 (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he does that. Don't take it the wrong way, just take it as an acknowledgement that he read what you had to say. Timeshift can be a little cantankerous, but he's an amazing editor who does a huge amount of very important content work. I've mentioned his userpage to him in the past when I feel he's crossed a line, but my attitude is that he's using it to disclose bias which is a valid use of userpages. -- Lear's Fool 06:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother with Shifty's userpage. He had a bit attacking my WP account for months and the admins refused to take any action. At the time I quoted the same policies/guidelines you have been (WP:NOTBLOG etc) but they are more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Tit for tat is your best bet - that was what worked for me. --Surturz (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging retaliation hey? How unbecoming of you :) Timeshift (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, perhaps tits wouldn't work on you after all :-) --Surturz (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop you pathetic smiley faces as an excuse for your slimey, biased and spiteful nature. Timbracks13 (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone down your excessive language thankyou. My userpage has been reviewed twice before after two others complained over the past five years (if you have issues with my page I take that as a compliment, yes I'm aware I tend to repeatedly skewer the right's arguments on my user page :). Perhaps you'd care to hang around a while and learn the wikipedia ropes? Lovely. Timeshift (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also strongly suggest you take my advice to remove your personal attack on me from your userpage. That IS something that is against userpages. Lear's fool? Timeshift (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your user page is clearly a breach. I have sent an email to wikipedia. Becasue you are personal friends with a number of admins such as Lear's Fool you are being protected. I suggest you view WP:UPNOT, WP:NOTBLOG and WP:UP. Your user page is not meant to be a place for you to make political remarks daily. Despite Lear's political views, his user page is not as biased and digsuting as yours. Also, you said on the Lee Rhiannon page that despite the fact the 'Controversy' section has exixted for a few months it should now be deleted at the request of Mr Chris Maltby, Convenor of Waverley Greens who clearly has a serious conflict of interest. In relation to your claim 'we don't do controversy' I suggest you view Belinda Neal, Sophie Mirabella, Bill Heffernan, Wilson Tuckey and more. Your bias is simply abhorrent. Timbracks13 (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to my 'personal attack' on you, I have decided I want to leave that there. I'm sure an admin won't mind. As long as I am an 'amazing editor'. Also, it wasn't an attack on you. It was a description of you. Timbracks13 (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make baseless accusations. I am not friends with any wikipedia admins. In relation to your examples, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. To satisfy us both, I simply removed the 'controversy' heading and merged it in to the body - something we will (well, should) both be happy with. Again, my userpage has been reviewed before, the most that anyone has said is not to make it too excessive. But I can and will keep most of it intact thankyou. And lastly, I do urge you to remove your personal attack of me from your userpage (and yes, it is a personal attack), it will serve you no justice. Or ignore me, up to you. Timeshift (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is baseless. I have viewed the talkpages of both you and Lear's Fool. It seems you have a history of making friendly comments and backing each other up. I am pleased you think you are in charge of Wikipedia and have the right to simply come along to a page and clear what you don't like. I would like to know what the politically motivated remarks on your page have to do with Wikipedia? For example calling a senior politician 'Zenophobic' a 'dog' and a 'turd'? Is that waht Wikipedia is for? If I called Julia Gillard a bitch on my talk page, would anyone mind? Timbracks13 (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely baseless. Lear backs me up when i'm right. He doesn't back me up when i'm not. Perhaps that says something? I am not in charge of wikipedia. The vast majority of contributors are aware of my vast five year editing history of positive helpful contructive contributions, I do not just come along and clear what I don't like. As for my userpage, it's exactly what it is. Look at the userbox to the right of the page. My userpage is my opinion, articles are not and must comply to WP:NPOV. I took the point that was made to me about turd, as such, it was removed. Point is, and hopefully it will help you, is: my userpage is my userpage, and I suggest you do not touch it, or continue to violate policies when making edits. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look what you did at Lee Rhiannon, that is simply a lie. Your userpage is not a social networking site or a blog. See WP:UP, WP:NOTBLOG and WP:UPNOT. You are also a strong defender of paedophile MP Bernard Finnigan.I might also add that many of the allegations you make on your userpage are simply baseless and have no credible evidence eg your allegation that Barry O'Farrell has no mandate and that he was involved in the Peter Besselling bus incident. In relation to violation of wikipedia policies, I have a famous quote for you 'Do as I say, not what I do'. Timbracks13 (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the mischievous edit at Rhiannon. When you insisted, I got the best of both worlds, by not removing any content, just the "controversy" heading. Stop disputing my userpage content. My userpage will remain for political thought, its been raised before and i've been in the right. If your only further interest is to debate my userpage, then you will quite simply be ignored on that particular subject and any edits to my userpage or talkpage will be reverted. As is my right on wikipedia. Thanks for your time. Timeshift (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to win this time. You are not going to get your own way like you always do. I am going to make sure your userpage is removed as according to WP:UPNOT, WP:UP and WP:BLOG Timbracks13 (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands

If you want this article deleted, I'd suggest the following strategy:

Remove the unreliable sources
Tag all disputable facts with {{cn}}
After a week, delete all {{cn}}-tagged content that has not been referenced
Finally, request article deletion

Focus on the content. POV trolls can be easily circumvented by providing WP:RS for text you want in, and challenging WP:V on text you want removed. Remember that WP:V generally trumps WP:CONS; WP:V is a core content policy, while WP:CONS is merely a conduct policy. POV trolls live for the talk pages; they rarely bother doing any real research, so providing high-quality references will always win out. --Surturz (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

I see you have reverted the talk page of User:Timeshift9 in excess of the WP:3RR, I also request that you clean own house first where you make a personal attack against another editor even if you havent got the link right the message is clear. Consider yourself warned on both counts, if make an other revrt to the talk page you will be blocked, if your user page isnt brought upto the Communities requirements quickly I'll delete the page myself. Gnan garra 07:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gnangarra, you've just bitten an editor who created his account three days ago. --Surturz (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note Surturz has a user page in the same style as Timbracks. --Merbabu (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His user page is not similar to mine at all. Lie. Timbracks13 (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surtz, how else do you suggest one tells the user to cease making such edits? He continues to violate 3RR on my userpage and my talkpage, let alone the article issues. Timeshift (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gnangarra, nice to meet you. I am pleased that you have issued me with such a warning, in an offensive and heavy handed way. I am pleased to know admins actually exist and I am pleased you have found an issue with my userpage. That must surely mean you find an issue with TimeShift's page? No? Thought not. I would be honoured if a polite and kind person like you deleted my userpage. I have come to know that admins turn a blind eye to many activities on wikipedia. In relation to the alleged 'personal attack' I did not attack TimeShift, I pointed out the differnces between our pages; his is a political mouthpiece and in breach of WP:UP, WP:UPNOT, WP:NOTBLOG. Btw, you sound like a really kind and helpful admin. (WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL. Timbracks13 (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim you are in a number of disputes on more than one page with TS, it appears that you are seeking out this user to cause disruption. Your user page is a personal attack against the same user. As I said below you can choose to disengage and edit productively or can continue with your current actions, if you want your user page deleted then add {{Db-u1}} to the page. Gnan garra 08:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up a Wikiquette alert about this user.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Gnangarra I am also in the process of complaining about his behavior and treatment of me. Timbracks13 (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now fixed my userpage. Satisfied? I now challenge you to take the same firm and uncivil actions against TimeShift over his userpage. I challenge you to bite him. The only problem is, I am a new user. Thanks for your understanding Timbracks13 (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disengage

I see you and User:Timeshift9 are in a numkber of disputes across multiple articles and since it apears that neither of you can play nicely together I suggest you make attempts to disengage Gnan garra 08:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numkber?Timbracks13 (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number, got two keys at once. Gnan garra 08:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, your user page currently has a "politcal". Losing the last three sentences wouldn't be a bad idea. I've always found user pages a good guide on whether I should value someone's opinion, and really, adding material that could be seen as petty because someone else is doing the same isn't the best look. Nevard (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Timbracks13 (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My uninvited advice

Tim, may I suggest you step away from the Timeshift matter for 24hours and concentrate on editing wikipedia articles? (and from Gnangarra too for that matter) Let things cool off so to speak. As I see it, everyone's made their point, but no-one can force anyone to accept one's own opinion. So move on for now, you've learnt a lot about wikipedia in the last 24 hours, and you'll continue to learn. Note that people will give newbies latitude. Just go and get some good quality article edits in your name (as opposed to quarrelling with other users). In case you dont' know already, the My Contributions link above is also available to every other user of wikipedia through (in your case) this link. It would help for you to have more article edits on that list than quarrels on talk pages. happy editing. --Merbabu (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Merbabu, tkanks for your advice, it's about time someone was fair and hepful. I am not going to get involved with TS anymore. I wasn't aware of all the rules, although I did try to read up on the basic rules. Please be assured I came to Wikipedia to make positive contributions. Please take a look at some of the pages I have created: The Bolt Report, 2011 Australian federal budget, Chris Smith (broadcaster), Paul Green (Australian politician), Australian Conservative, Animal Justice Party, Restore the Workers' Rights Party, The First Nations Political Party and more. ThanksTimbracks13 (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say just bite your tongue on that quarrel no matter if you're tempted otherwise! And, if you do some good faith edits and show that you are picking up on the wikipedia way, then it will all blow over (remember, everyone's contributions list is public and forever!). I hopefully get a chance soon to look over some of your edits, and will try to be clear with any changes I make. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of No Parking Meters Party

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 No Parking Meters Party 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 an organization or company, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance 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. Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with No Parking Meters Party. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Shadowjams (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake. It was an accident when I was trying to insert the Infobox. Rude person. Timbracks13 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you changing "controversial" to "C*******:"? [[1]], [[2]]?

And calling someone a rude person isn't cool, please see WP:NPA. (It's okay to say someone did a rude thing -- Comment on the contribution not the contributor) Gerardw (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gerardw. That matter which you are talking about is discussed above and has been resolved. ThanksTimbracks13 (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of your current conduct, I've blocked your account for an indefinite period - please note that this is not a permanent block, but rather a block which will last until you demonstrate that you are capable of editing productively and genuinely intend to do so. Talk page comments such as this, this, this, this, this (in the edit summary) and this as well as this version of your user page and blatant vandalism such as this and this, this and this is totally unacceptable. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Timbracks13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am really, genuinley stunned by this development. If you view what was said above, I am sorry for my conduct, but I was not aware of some of the rules eg the 3 revert rule. In relation to the blanking of TimeShift's page, that was done becasue I was seeking to have the page deleted, and it was a courtesy blanking. In relation to to the C******** incident that was becasue timeshift said pages could not have Controversial sections. The comments I made were not overly offensive. I note you are a friend of TimeShift the user I have been having a debate with. You claim that saying 'hypocrite' was bad. How? I joined 3 days ago. Only 3 days ago, I cannot be expected to know all policies instantly. What about WP:BITE?. Lastly, please take a look at some of the pages I have created: The Bolt Report, 2011 Australian federal budget, Chris Smith (broadcaster), Paul Green (Australian politician), Australian Conservative, Animal Justice Party, Restore the Workers' Rights Party, The First Nations Political Party and the No Parking Meters Party. Please give me a chance. Timbracks13 (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not convince me that you will no longer disrupt Wikipedia if you are unblocked. Nobody needs to tell you not to insult others; that's a rule of common decency. Sandstein 10:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I feel you are less than genuine as you were repeatedly told of various policies in various places by various people, but you continued to ignore them. Also, I am not "friends" with Nick-D. Nor others you have accused me of. I have met nobody who has been in discussions this evening, or know of them outside of wikipedia, or communicate with them in any way outside of wikipedia. If to you, being friendly means being friends, well, it explains a lot. Timeshift (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ignore them. Since I was told, I haven't done anything wrong. And while you cpontinue to make personal attacks and slurs on me I an surprised that after only 3 days and many positive contributions I have been blocked. Timbracks13 (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TO THE REVIEWING ADMIN: I created my account only 3 days ago. I think some fairness should be applied. Please give me a chance. Timbracks13 (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to your own talk page you and Nick-D are being very, very friendly indeed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Timeshift9#Abbott_quote_for_you

Also, your userpage is now clearly an attack on me. Yet no admin gives a crap do they?Timbracks13 (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, simply untrue, you repeatedly violated various rules after you were told of them by various people, it's all in your contribution history. I'm not personally attacking you, quite the opposite. And how does that quote you selected make me and Nick-D "friends" exactly...? Timeshift (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Timbracks13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am really, genuinley stunned by this development. If you view what was said above, I am sorry for my conduct, but I was not aware of some of the rules eg the 3 revert rule. In relation to the blanking of TimeShift's page, that was done becasue I was seeking to have the page deleted, and it was a courtesy blanking. In relation to to the C******** incident that was becasue timeshift said pages could not have Controversial sections. The comments I made were not overly offensive. I note you are a friend of TimeShift the user I have been having a debate with. You claim that saying 'hypocrite' was bad. How? I joined 3 days ago. Only 3 days ago, I cannot be expected to know all policies instantly. What about WP:BITE?. Lastly, please take a look at some of the pages I have created: The Bolt Report, 2011 Australian federal budget, Chris Smith (broadcaster), Paul Green (Australian politician), Australian Conservative, Animal Justice Party, Restore the Workers' Rights Party, The First Nations Political Party and the No Parking Meters Party. Please give me a chance. I make a solemn promise never to disrupt Wikipedia again, or insult people. I note I continue to be inulted. I acknowledge I made a mistake, but I think I deserve a chance when you consider all the pages I have created. Please, I really enjoy editing Wikipedia and I am sorry for getting into this fight. Timbracks13 (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That's enough. You have been blocked as a sockpuppet. Now would be a good time to drop it. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 13:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Tim, really. If you want to convince people that you no longer will be disruptive (and hence have your block lifted), then stop being disruptive. Continuing to argue with Timeshift against advice and now picking fights with admins Gnangarra and NickD aint doing you any favours. If you really want to convince people you are going to be a benefit then back away from wikipedia for a day or two then see how you feel. --Merbabu (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why won't TimeShift leave me alone and get off my page? - unsigned by Timbracks13

I think if this block is continued I will just give up. I am honestly quite upset by this. I have been shocked by the hostile environment of Wikipedia and the way new editors are treated with suspicion. I tried to read up on policies, but obviously made the mistake of getting into a fight with TimeShift. Thanks for your kind words and help but I think I'll probably just give Wikipedia up now. Timbracks13 (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to discontinue your disruption had me thinking I was wasting my time and making me look silly. The deception of your sockpuppetry has convinced me. Good riddance I say. --Merbabu (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created this account because my other account (Enidblyton11) was blocked due to being compromised. I did stop me disruption. Timbracks13 (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enidblyton11 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Enidblyton11 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Lear's Fool 12:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this editor is now simultaneously editing here and at User talk:Enidblyton11, I've removed their ability to edit this talk page as there's nothing further they can do with this account. Any unblock requests should be made at User talk:Enidblyton11, though I note that they're very unlikely to be successful given their conduct. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, how odd. Lear's Fool just tried to do this same thing on my other account. How stange. Sockpuppetrey? Timbracks13 (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rainbow Liberals

The article Rainbow Liberals has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no claim to notability present in the 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. Kevin (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]