Hello, Fortibus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Hooverville. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jargon777 Leave a message 15:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mistake under quantum theory that I can't edit. Currently it says:

"These light particles were named photons in In 1923 Arthur Holly Compton showed that the wavelength shift seen when low intensity X-rays scattered from electrons (so called Compton scattering) could be explained by a particle-theory of X-rays but not a wave theory. In 1926 Gilbert N. Lewis named these liqht quanta photons."

The beginning is a partial sentence that should be removed. The corrected version is:

"In 1923 Arthur Holly Compton showed that the wavelength shift seen when low intensity X-rays scattered from electrons (so called Compton scattering) could be explained by a particle-theory of X-rays but not a wave theory. In 1926 Gilbert N. Lewis named these liqht quanta photons." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortibus (talk • contribs) 17:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. After 10 edits and 4 days (the 4 days have passed, but you need to make 8 or 9 more edits on non-semi-protected articles), you'll be able to make such changes yourself. Remember to sign your TALK page posts with four tildes: ~~~~.

By the way, you didn't start out very auspiciously, as your edit to Hoovertown was pretty clearly what we call "vandalism". Are you going to be a good citizen, or not? Right now, you have one screwup vandalism (use the sandbox for that), and one helpful edit. One bad, one good. So please make 8 more helpful edits and decide to be a good citizen here. It's a lot more fun, I promise you. SBHarris 17:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, though I believe you're mistaken. I clearly removed vandalism on the Hooverville page, as the "Welcome" message above references. In fact, my edit still stands on the Hooverville page. I plan on continuing to edit, but honestly I can't find very many mistakes. Since i'm not an expert in any field, I don't have much else to add. Fortibus (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. There's still a huge amount to be done here just for people with basic writing skills. I don't mean fixing spelling errors or sentence frags (though that's okay). What we need is people who can split a long paragraph, find a topic sentence, organize information, etc. If you have a feel for that, there's as much here to contribute as you have time for. Just read, and when you see something that needs a better writing job, do it! If your changes are logical and make things flow and so on, they'll stay as long as WP does. SBHarris 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ideas! For some reason, I often think of WP in terms of content, not style. I can definitely contribute in that arena, since I do a lot of creative writing in my spare time. Fortibus (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Malala Yousafzai, you edited back my change of "She was the runner-up" to "She won runner-up." Since I'm new to wikipedia, I am not too sure where I should debate about this, so I chose your talk page. Please delete this if found appropriate.

Anyway, a runner up is the "the competitor who finishes second". Thus, you don't "win" runner-up, you "are" the runner-up. Some example usages can be found at your dictionary. Shikhin (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even realize someone else edited it, because the change happened so fast! I just thought I made a mistake. No problem--you can change it back if you'd like. Fortibus (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a sentenced you added to this article, since it seemed to be uncited opinion. If you'd like to re-add it with citation, go ahead. See: Talk:Malala_Yousafzai#understandable:_opinion 85.138.128.15 (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I responded on the talk page. Fortibus (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortibus. You seem to have a good faith misunderstanding about copyright. You say you fixed the page but all you did was cite the copyright violations to where they were taken from. Citing where text comes from in no way removes the copyright violation. You cite a source to show where the information comes from but it has to be stated in your own words and cannot be a surface change of the original text (see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. You can use short portion in quotation marks with an inline citation (which you did not do for most of the content here), but that can't make up most of the body of the article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Honestly though, i'm perplexed by what's happened here. Instead of letting me bring more sources in and correct the issue (since i'm obviously active and willing), you simply delete it. How is that good for Wikipedia? It alienates new editors like me who want to contribute to this great website. You could have simply removed the offending content to the talk page for me to work on ,or deleted the content -- it was a few sentences at most. I will request for undeletion and fix this. Fortibus (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC),[reply]

Sorry, I do understand what you're saying but it's simply not possible for a copyright violation. They must be removed immediately. They are a violation of law, expose Wikipedia to legal liability and even of you change the content to remove them from the current version, the copyright infringement persists in the page history which anyone can access. What I can do is provide to you the skeleton of the non-infringing content—see below in edit mode – just grab the content between the nowiki tags)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[comment from random outsider] I know the process is annoying and you will basically never find it fair (I still get upset when editors show up, slap templates on an article, then leave the mess for others to clean up)—but it's still totally worth it, so I hope you stick around. Thanks also for your contributions so far. groupuscule (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the concern--I plan to stick around. I have to say, though, that the argument "they must be removed immediately" is simply not true. If it was, the {Close paraphrasing} tag and the {Copypaste} tag wouldn't exist -- both of which ask the editor to fix the material, not mandatorily delete it. And the second argument, that you must remove it because "the copyright infringement persists in the page history which anyone can access" is just silly. Page histories aren't indexed (as far as i'm aware), and again, the copyright templates ask people to fix the content, meaning I can say with 100% certainty that Wikipedia is hosting copyrighted content on its servers. I don't mean to belabor the point, but I don't think i'm completely wrong here, nor do I accept that I will "never find it fair". If there are bureaucratic processes that we can correct, then let's do it. Fortibus (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fortibus, thank you for your dedication to the article of Malala Yousafzai. I would like to point you to my previous notes, "Her activism began after President Asif Ali Zardari signed the Nizam-e-Adl Regulation into law in 2009. The regulation was recommended by Sufi Muhammad, a government official and supporter of the Taliban in order to establish a cease fire."

Please consider bringing them back into the article. If possible, I would like to re-integrate these facts, but would rather discuss here than have it removed.

Thank You. Twillisjr (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Twil--I removed it to the Talk page because it seemed too detailed for the lead. I'm going to put it in the "Refugee" section, since it took place around that time. Is that okay? Fortibus (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I added it to the section right before that. Thanks. Fortibus (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your assistance. It did seem to correlate with the year "2009" and might have impacted her to become an activist. If there is a place you may see it fit in that regard, even if it is ===Section=== per se. Thanks again!

Twillisjr (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point--it may have inspired her. Let me see where else I can put it. Fortibus (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In order to provide some background, "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa" is the place she is from, and it is defined as a part of "Malakand Division." The political pressure of the Taliban encouraged these reforms and Sharia Law is notorious for anti-female regulations. I believe it is a key element to tie the Taliban to her shooting, in a historical context. :)

Twillisjr (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point at Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi, who are likely her attackers. There are several pieces of information linking them to this type of attack.

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cropped, low-resolution image of Malala Yousafzai facing camera.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I'd like to congratulate you for your hard work on the Malala Yousafzai article. You've worked diligently, and cooperated with me and others in a civil manner, showing what true teamwork is about. Keep up the good work! FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	excellent article.....I can help if asked Harishrawat11 (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For superb editing and major improvements to the Malala Yousafzai article. Cheers. OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I really appreciate the work you did on my behalf on the Malala article. Note that some of your work has already been undone (sigh).

Does it make sense to cut some of the discussion out of the neutrality talk page and put it on your or my talk page to make it shorter, so that we aren't monopolizing people's browser space who are talking about other parts of the article?

I have further worries about non-neutrality. Your statement clarifying that a majority of Islamic clerics condemned the attack was removed from the public reaction section, and instead we have a quote from the pop singer Madonna saying

 "This made me cry," Madonna said, "The 14-year-old schoolgirl who 
 wrote a blog about going to school. The Taliban stopped her bus and shot her. 
 Do you realize how sick that is?"

This in place of arguments saying, what is the mainstream Taliban or Islamic reaction, and even before and independenlty of the shooting, what are the thoughts and opinions of those who oppose Malala's ideas?

Is all that we are to know about Taliban philosophy is that it made the pop singer Madonna cry to think how sick the crime against Malala was? Something seems missing. Also, truthfully, the lynch mob mentality in this article is frightening me (and I am not in any way involved nor am I a muslim).

Createangelos (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You edits are being discussed here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#SPAs_-_should_we_work_on_retaining_them.3F Ottawahitech (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. I replied on the page with my experience/thoughts. Fortibus (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are being discussed here Wikipedia_talk:Missing_Wikipedians#Missing_Wikipedians_with_a_small_number_of_edits. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Ward Park, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Fiddle Faddle 11:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fortibus. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "First Ward".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and delete it. Thanks for the warning! Fortibus (talk)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Carolina Theatre (Charlotte, North Carolina), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:56, 1 November 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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortibus, Simply wonderful job on First Ward Park! I created almost all the Charlotte Park articles (as User:Foobarnix) and am delighted that others have joined in to write WP articles on Romare Bearden Park and now this one. I went to see it for the first time at the grand opening and was about to sit down and write it up for WP when I found your excellent article. I have some pictures I personally took at the opening that might be nice for the gallery of photos. For example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fountain_in_First_Ward_Park,_Charlotte,_NC.jpg. Do you think this would be overkill?

I am particularly proud of my article on the Little Sugar Creek Greenway. Have you considered becoming a member of WikiProject Charlotte? There is a lot to document in Charlotte. I am currently gathering sources for an eventual WP article on the McColl Center for Art + Innovation . --Toploftical (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 

  Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note below.

• Please also see WP:MEDMOS and WP:PHARMOS for style in writing about health in WP. Thanks

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, however I don't see why you deleted all my new additions when they were clearly in good faith. The review that I had added under "positive effects" seems to have been in line with the article you mentioned about reliable sources (it was not a primary source but a review of the existing science). You also deleted my clarification of the other review listed.

You also deleted my clarification of how Germany prescribes ALA for diabetic neuropathy. Both sources were University pages. Maybe that's an unreliable source, maybe not. But again, clearly that was in good faith. You could have simply found a more reliable source given that it is in fact prescribed in Germany or raised a flag on the talk page.

Please let me know why none of these should be added. I prefer not to get into a tit-for-tat but i'll be adding these back otherwise as they seem to be within the norms/guidelines (I'll add a better source for the Germany comment, although I think the University sources were adequate).

Fortibus (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith or bad has nothing to do with it. Please take some time to read WP:MEDRS (especially the WP:MEDDEF section) and if you don't understand what kind of sources we look for, please ask. And for content about health, please the manuals of style linked above - we don't have sections like the ones you created. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a community of engaged editors. When you remove someone's content (that they took the time and effort to add) without explaining why, it comes off as inflammatory. Inflammatory actions weaken Wikipedia by discouraging engaged people from contributing. If the editor is acting in bad faith then those actions should be discouraged. Good faith actions shouldn't be discouraged though in my opinion, as Wikipedia is stronger with more engaged editors.

You said to ask if I didn't understand what sources you're looking for and that's what I did. Why was the review that I added removed? I reread the style guide references you mention and now have come to believe that the Germany comment was within guidelines as well. By simply saying that Germany prescribes this drug for diabetic neuropathy i'm not making a health/medical claim or comment. It doesn't fit under the style guide you mentioned. It's merely a statement of where the drug is prescribed, and a University medical page should be adequate for that unless I'm missing something.

Fortibus (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the three refs you added to Acetylcarninitine in these diffs:

• PMID 27180954 - primary source, not a review
• PMID 18598095 - primary source, not a review
• PMID 15616239 - primary source, not a review

And here is the ref you added to the Lipoic acid article in these diffs:

• http://umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/ -- not a secondary source per MEDRS

Again if you don't understand WP:MEDDEF, please ask. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are literature reviews or statements by major medical/scientific bodies (no, universities are not considered "major medical/scientific bodies" - by that way mean NIH, NHS, WHO, etc) Again, if you don't understand WP:MEDDEF please ask. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Lipoic Acid article, not ALCAR. You're correct that I added primary sources to ALCAR, but primary sources already exist in that article! Remember, style guides are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. I did not add anything to that article that was outside the norms of that article. If you want to remove all primary sources from the article, I might even agree with you there, but you didn't do that.

For ALA I did the same thing - I added a review because reviews were what was in the article. The UMM site you mentioned was for the comment that Germany prescribes ALA for diabetic neuropathy. You must have missed the other review that I added. It was this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3176171/

As I said before, all my reviews were in good faith. You could have simply raised a comment on the Talk page. Instead you deleted them without apparently reading them. Then went through my history and deleted comments on other pages (without actually reading the full contents of those pages). Again, if you don't understand WP:FAITH please ask.

Fortibus (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did miss that review - we had a newer review (PMID 22331979) and for some reason you also added an older one. We generally don't do that. There are even newer reviews (pubmed search is here) that are moderate. Will cite one of them.

If you want to use low quality sources you need to justify them. You will have difficulty getting consensus to use them. If you want to argue for them, please open a section on the relevant article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lipoic acid shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Acetylcarnitine page, your edit caused a PMC error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Musa Khankhel 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/Musa Khankhel 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. Greenbörg (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fortibus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article National Malala Peace Prize has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

only one recipient, for 6 years. Non-notable.

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. Ꞷumbolo 23:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fortibus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Makan Bagh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article originally stated that this was the name of a neighbourhood, but the page creator later changed this statement to merely an intersection. Notability not demonstrated.

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. – Fayenatic London 20:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Fortibus! I just made some changes to the FWD.us page, after disclosing that I am employed by the organization. Can you please review my edits for neutrality, sourcing, and relevance to the community. Thanks. Emilylevett (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]