Hi, I'm Kudpung. Le petit fromage, thanks for creating A Dictionary of English Etymology!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add categories

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Thomas Blanco White has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable attorney; article reads like an obituary, see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Not quite eligible for speedy deletion since there are some claims of notability.

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. MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Blanco White 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/Thomas Blanco White 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're already aware, but Thomas Blanco White was kept. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evolution (TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Walters, Ian Shaw and Mark Tandy. 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) 09:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. ubiquity (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will re-write the page in line with policies of WP:DEFERENCETOAUTHORITY. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. ubiquity (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I will clearly have to try harder, then. Le petit fromage (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Le petit fromage,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Christopher Smallwood for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with deference to authority. It has to do with neutrality. Clearly, you believe the only notable thing about Smallwood is that he wrote an ill-conceived paper on a subject which you believe he knew nothing about. But even the Debrett's listing you cite makes it clear that he has done other things, some of them notable. A balanced article on Smallwood would mention some of his other accomplishments. It would also give a balanced account of the report. I think such an article could be written, though I have a feeling it would not suit your desires to do so. But Wikipedia is not a place to "call out" people for what you perceive to be misguided activities. If that's all you want to do, the article will keep getting speedily deleted. ubiquity (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David William Thomas ‎

You may want to rewrite your comments and discuss the quality of the sources at the debate. Currently you do not cite any Wikipedia policy to keep or delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Tait Pitman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages JP, CB and CMG. 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) 08:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Weiner, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and FRCP. 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) 08:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duncan Haldane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FRS. 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) 09:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why did you create Olaf Hambro instead of his full name, Ronald Olaf Hambro? Is there a source that says that he preferred using his second Christian name?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, could you point me to the previous Articles for Deletion page for Alan Hall (molecular biologist) please? There seem to have been various capitalisations of the title, so I was unable to find it. Many thanks, Arthur goes shopping (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Hall (biologist). Not to be confused with Alan Hall. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Christopher J. Barnard, Le petit fromage!

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

Thanks for the start. I hope to see this expand.

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

Learn more about page curation.

[1] As an Argentine editing English WP, I was shocked at your joyful but yet hateful vote. I thought of letting you know, so next time you could be more conscious of the negative impact that remarks can have on a minority group of WP editors.

Also, I take this opportunity to inform you that Mike Bingham is British, not Argentine. --Langus ^TxT 07:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source for your preferred version or leave it alone. --Michig (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same about "your version". I do feel sorry for you because you clearly know nothing about the subject, yet oddly feel compelled to aggressively and rudely defend the status quo, about which you are entirely ignorant. Le petit fromage (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Leicester 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.--Michig (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a second time, you're failing to address the points made to you. Please pay attention to what I am saying rather than being a (redacted). Le petit fromage (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Michig (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said - (redacted). Le petit fromage (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Michig (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, keep on proving it instead of dealing with factual inaccuracies, because we don't have a clue about the subject at hand, let's get a personal victory over the person more knowledgeable than you!!! Le petit fromage (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Leicester. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please do not make any more personal attacks as you did above and do not restore the redacted attacks. That is not permissible behavior.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but being a cunt is, as you've just demonstrated. I know I should not surprised that you say nothing about content. The content is wrong - we should discuss that and you'd be less of a cunt. Le petit fromage (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've revoked your talk page access. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 31 August 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) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tom Troscianko 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/Tom Troscianko 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. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]