Malick78

Hi we are a group from Colgate University and we plan on editing this article. We have plans to improve the quality of sources and information. We will be making edits until May 9. If you have any contributions or questions please let us know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epenberthy1217 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

On 15 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ngaire Thomas, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Ta. I'll do my best:) Malick78 (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 19 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guenther Podola, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 21 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Ashby, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Majorly (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 2 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John B. Harman, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks:)) Malick78 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 8 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Melford Stevenson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 10 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Styllou Christofi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You asked for some citations on the claim about British and American submarine atrocities; I've was looking into this and it seems to be true. I've been adding the information to the relevant pages. I've left the Eck page alone so far; it's very apologist in its tone, but I'm not in the mood to tackle it just now. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for the info:) Malick78 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 22 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chełm Chalk Tunnels, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 29 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Inteco, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if my actions somehow concerned you. I considered the crime unimportant because no article existed for it and there was only one reference for the conviction. A very WP:CIVIL discussion took place here about it. The process worked as it should. Cheers Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Okay - thanks for the response:) Malick78 (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 9 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Town Hall of Słupsk, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 9 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colin Norris, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

On March 15, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spieprzaj dziadu!, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for recognizing my work on the John Bodkin Adams article. Little notes of encouragement go a long way.--SidP (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 8 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kot Filemon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 23 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Percy Hoskins, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 22:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Did you know? hook based on a fact from the article you created or substantially expanded, Percy Hoskins, has been added to the Wikipedia Portals, Portal:Criminal justice and Portal:Journalism. Thank you for your contributions in this topic! If you know of another relevant fact from an article that has appeared at Did you know?, then please suggest it at the associated portal talk page.

-- Nice work! Cirt (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 14 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Henry Douthwaite, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 05:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 15 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frederick Geoffrey Lawrence, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 1 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leonard Arthur, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 9 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nigel Cox (doctor), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! --PeterSymonds (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 15 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Moor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! --PeterSymonds (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The seven-day Hold has expired. I will complete the review on the basis of the article as it is now. It would have been useful to have had some kind of comment from you. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the message. I can see that a lot of work has been done - will try to report on the GA later today. Brianboulton (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 10 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rodney Hallworth, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 13 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maxim Petrov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! -- RyRy (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 16 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article logocracy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 18 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sanlu Group, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 24 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Shipman Inquiry, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

We had most of the information already, but just tucked down further in the article. But thanks for what you have done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 29 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Lodwig, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 2 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edson Isidora Guimaraes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 16 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Offset agreement, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 4 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hanwei Group, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

This DYK notification was delayed due to some mistake in the crediting for a recent batch of hooks (discussion here). Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 11:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem, glad to help! :-) Jamie^☆S93 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 4 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward William Pritchard, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Moscow Pride at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Otto4711 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 21 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rebellion: the Litvinenko Case, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 21 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moscow Pride, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

the pending discussion of Putin's pic on Talk:Vladimir Putin.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, the "Opposition to homosexuality" section in Alex II article had apparently been removed; i put it back, but i suspect it may take some watching.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

On 1 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Beggar's Benison, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of John Barnard Byles at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

On January 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Catherine Wilson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 04:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

On January 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Barnard Byles, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations for your double nom hook! I know it's hard to do. Royalbroil 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

On January 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Selby Watson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on John Emsley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Cerejota (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

On August 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Weston (Explorer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 11:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

On September 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2009 Chinese lead poisoning scandal, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the edits. It could get good DYK attention in a few days, so having it balanced with no tags would be great. I could sure use a hand fixing it up. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, please see your nomination of Government by itineration at DYK for comments.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

...and also the one for Howard Martin, which has a minor issue about a word in the hook. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Resolved. Good luck on the DYK. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the future, if you are going to mention me on somebody's talk page or anywhere else for that matter, particularly if you're making negative comments about me, as you did here [1], I would appreciate it if you'd let me know. Otherwise there's a certain unpleasant "talking about somebody behind their back" aspect to these kinds of comments. Thanks.radek (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Erm, no. Malick78 (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

On 20 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Government by itineration, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 

I have nominated Spieprzaj dziadu!, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spieprzaj dziadu! (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Claritas § 20:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

On 17 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mikhail Beketov, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Mikhail Beketov, a Russian journalist who opposed construction of the Moscow – Saint Petersburg motorway, was beaten up by unknown assailants in November 2008, leaving him wheelchair-bound? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

On 14 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Viktor Kalashnikov, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Russian journalists Viktor and Marina Kalashnikova claim to have been poisoned because of their political writings? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 14 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marina Kalashnikova, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Russian journalists Viktor and Marina Kalashnikova claim to have been poisoned because of their political writings? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 31 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rudolf Elmer, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Swiss whistleblower Rudolf Elmer claims that passing secret account details to WikiLeaks is the only hope he has to let "society know what's going on" in the banking sector? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on DJ Jabbathakut requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on K-Delight requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 20 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David T. Beers, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that S&P sovereign ratings division head David T. Beers is responsible for the recent downgrade of the U.S. credit rating? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/David T. Beers.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I recently found the page Catherine Wilson, which tells a fascinating story. I'm interested in working on its references. I wanted to let you know because I consider it "your" article. Please drop me a note if you have any thoughts about the question I mention at Talk:Catherine Wilson. --Officiallyover (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Hi, I'd be more than happy to give input :) Thanks for the message. Malick78 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murzyn 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/Murzyn 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 good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--Lysy^talk 23:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 7 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Murzynek Bambo, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Murzynek Bambo.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

On 23 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gadzhimurat Kamalov, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that according to New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, the killing of Gadzhimurat Kamalov, founder of the newspaper Chernovik in Dagestan, Russia, is "a lethal blow to press freedom"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gadzhimurat Kamalov.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

User Greyhood is active again adding highly POV sections such as this [2]. Närking (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Kelly Marcel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable person, barely known for one event.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Speciate (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

nice work on the Mikhail Beketov article. Decora (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. And thanks for your additions too! Malick78 (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Malick78. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm still laughing :) [3] Närking (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks. It's funny... cos it could so possibly be true :D Malick78 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Malick78: I saw the article you posted on the leaf talk page—neat!! Thanks for sharing it. You might also post the message on the Carnivorous plant talk page. In a quick check, I didn't see anything mentioned about the involved species in that article. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

For your relentless dedication to improving Wikipedia

Hello, I've noticed all the hard work you've done to keep many articles (such as article about Putin and similar ones) as encyclopedic and as neutral as possible (even if it meant you had to battle with many "agenda pushers" throughout your editing history) so I believe you deserve some recognition for that ;-) Hopefully you won't mind a custom image! Rndomuser (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, you're most kind! Malick78 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but you need a ref, or at least an example, that this is common, or found in English. I can't think of any examples, anyway, and sources say these are rare. — kwami (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Polish examples don't look like disfixation. I just checked Swan (2002) and a couple other sources, and all show a null suffix for the gen.pl. For example, mysz does not become *my in the gen.pl. — kwami (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

you cannot just revert evrything i do on my edits on the putin article, you do not own the article! and you got to keep your "mafia state" but that term was not used until 1 december 2010 so it must be noted as such Peterzor (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

• You may notice that no one else is defending your edits or reinstating them. That's a strong hint that others disagree with them. In particular, your last edit regarding when the term appeared with unnecessarily detailed for the intro, and the grammar was wrong. Hence I removed it. It was also your own OR (where did you get the info that the term wasn't used before 2010?).Malick78 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

after getting some further information about the subject i realise that "mafia state" is not just a western media term but it seems very many russian agree with it, so you were right the whole time and please note that this should not come as a "surprise" because i never was a putin supporter just merely seeing things as they are and seeing beyond the thinking of the media Peterzor (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Hey, we all live and learn and all of us get a bit carried away sometimes. Take care, Malick78 (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

what do you mean with "get a bit carried away sometimes"? i did not "get a bit carried away sometimes" Peterzor (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

• You were absolutely adamant that 'mafia state' was not a fair term to use when describing Putin's Russia, but above you seem to have said that it is more widely used than you thought. I didn't mean to offend.Malick78 (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good response i guess people can do mistakes sometimes Peterzor (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I totally retract my remarks and statements here! you tricked me into beliving some nonsense, after even further research i see there is no single russian (pro and against putin) source found anywhere nor so many russians agreeing with that and even such russian sources exist they are do not comply with wikipedia policy Peterzor (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello. A while back, you reverted an anonymous user's edit, but that user was in fact correct, and I have basically reverted you. It's a common misnomer to call the rook a "castle". The article as you reverted it to was not in accord with chess terminology.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Hi, while I realise chess players may prefer (somewhat pretentiously) to say only 'rook', it's also true that 'castle' is used by a large amount of ordinary players and in my view is therefore not wrong. Where do you think the term castling comes from, after all? It seems, from the 'wrong' term for the piece? :) Malick78 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Castle" is used by few players, and it's generally those who are just learning the game. The etymology is not explained in the castling article, but 1 - foreign languages tend to base their term for the move off their word for "rook", and English is an exception, 2 - the term seems to refer more to the formation of a fortress-like setup rather than the involvement of the castle-shaped piece.

In any case, the piece is formally a rook, and Wikipedia strives to be formal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Wikipedia tries to be accessible so the most commonly used term is often encouraged: in our case, we have two commonly used terms - and, if you'd care to google the terms chess+rook and chess+castle, as I just did, you'll find that the latter gets 7 times more hits. That's quite a difference. Even if you add "+knight" to make sure chess pages are hit, you still get over double the number for 'castle'. So, in my view, self-proclaimed chess aficionados' preference for 'rook' is a mere snobbery. Amateur players are happy to say 'castle' but that certainly doesn't mean that 'castle' is any worse. (Btw, are you American? Perhaps usage differs regionally?) I added 'castle' to the page because (if I recall correctly) someone had removed it - which struck me as being unnecessarily pretentious.

As for your theory of the etymological root of 'castling', I'm almost certain your suggestion is wrong but etymonline.com gives us no help with it. As a professional linguist I'd say, however, that the simplest solution is most likely - that it's all because the 'castle' is involved. That's why in Russian it's "rokirovka", not a word based on 'zamok' - their word for castle, which would be the case if the move was being named after 'making a defensive castle-like structure'. Malick78 (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

No. Not only is "castle" not a common term among experienced players (which I am), it's not common enough to justify the use of this misspelling. I might consider myself to have a conflict of interest, being a player, but in my opinion it's unprofessional to call the piece a "castle" when its proper name is a rook (no, amateurs tend to use the word rook, only absolute beginners tend to use "castle"). I also strongly disagree with your conclusion about its etymology because it makes no sense in the context of the way the game is played. The rook is not changed, except by position, when castling occurs - other than being more centralized, it's not given anything special. On the other hand, the king enjoys a fortification of pawns, which is often critical in professional games.

I also believe that it's better to encourage the use of the proper term, rather than the improper one.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, let's agree to disagree :) I won't undo your edit, but really, as the grandson of a man who represented his county in British chess competitions, I was taught to say 'rook' and 'castle'. At chess club at school, 'castle' was acceptable. And no one ever corrected me in regional competitions when I entered them as a kid. 'Castle' is acceptable amongst many people and the idea that it's "incorrect" is mere snobbery, IMHO :)

As for etymology, the fact that the king gains from interaction with the 'castle' is reason enough to name the move after the piece involved. Etymology is frequently very simple (I'm an expert on English and Slavonic etymology, I'll humbly add ;) ), and I fear you're overthinking things. Regards, Malick78 (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why did you destroy my work in the Western betrayal article? If the grammar is bad, improve it. If it is not neutral, then talk to Polish historian Piotr Zychowicz. Tymek (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• You edited a history article by giving a ref to an 'alternative history novel'. Your edit was then deleted by 2 other editors, one of whom I know is sympathetic to your POV. Your ref was appallingly bad for an encyclopaedia. Sorry.Malick78 (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete my entry of "William Dobbie" on the "Plymouth Brethren" page? It was already noted on Dobbie's Wikipedia page that he adhered to Plymouth Brethren principles. I didn't put that in his bio. So, there's no reason to delete Dobbie's name from the "Plymouth Brethren" page. Canihaveacookie (Talk), October 6, 2013, 18:57 (UTC)

• You didn't include a ref and there wasn't one in Dobbie's article. I explained this in the edit summary. Malick78 (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It was late night, may be I was careless. I will double-check. In any case in some of these pieces something was definitely wrong. Sorry for trouble, if I was mistaken or unclear. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

A little over 2 weeks ago, you removed the Forbes ranking from Putin's article, and I assume an IP isn't happy with that. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#forbes and WP:NOTNEWS. NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 20:45, 18 April 2014 (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 Hildenbrandia page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter 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) 00:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Malick. Thank you for your comments. I replied to your comment on the talkpage of the Plymouth Brethren article; just in case you don't see it there, I thought I'd repeat it here : No, it's not whitewashing. The names in question have not been removed — they have simply been moved. What's happened is that four articles — Plymouth Brethren, Open Brethren, Exclusive Brethren, and Plymouth Brethren Christian Church have been reorganized. The Plymouth Brethren article now contains material that is common to all branches and offshoots of the Plymouth Brethren tradition. Material that relates specifically to the Open or Exclusive Brethren has been moved to the relevant articles. The same goes for the "membership list" — the Open/Exclusive schism took place in 1848, so what we're trying to do is put the early Brethren "pioneers" (people that would be regarded as such by both the Opens and the Exclusives) in this this list, with others moved to the branches/offshoots they were part of. For example, Luis Palau was brought up in the Open Brethren; I doubt that he has ever set foot inside an Exclusive Brethren "hall" in his life. Therefore it makes little sense to put him any place but the "open" list. I repeat: there is NO attempt to "sanitize" these lists. Adams, BTW, is now in the "Open Brethren" list. David Cannon (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, re the edit you made on Folly, the biggest issue on the (little visited) talk page is what IS a folly, what are the limits, although some claim NO practical purpose, others say that the design has to be wholly disproportionate to any purpose (an ancient Greek Temple to keep the lawn-mower in?). The definition used in the intro is:

'This sense included conventional, practical, buildings that were thought unduly large or expensive, such as Beckford's Folly, an extremely expensive early Gothic Revival country house that collapsed under the weight of its tower in 1825, 12 years after completion. As a general term, "folly" is usually applied to a small building that appears to have no practical purpose, or the purpose of which appears less important than its striking and unusual design, but the term is ultimately subjective, so a precise definition is not possible'.

So I'm not sure whether 'Swallow's nest' is in or out. Many of the buildings on our list have (or had) some practical purpose. What seems wholly outside the idea of a folly, is a mere 'novelty building', especially if it was consciously a piece of advertisement. … … ps I have no 'axe to grind' on this, I am just trying to keep the article consistent. Pincrete (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

This wiki-kitten is here to say "Thank you for your continued efforts to make this project better". Like a kitten, Wikipedia may occasionally scratch, but it is still worth it! Cheers. Hi, Malick78. For the first time today, I run into an article you wrote and DYKed back in the old days, called Rebellion: the Litvinenko Case (← 2008‎). I really enjoyed it. I added Infobox with the release poster as well as internal and external links. From our past interaction I know you to be an objective observer, and I'm sorry for having caused you the inconvenience or hurt during the EEML squabble. I feel terrible about it. I promise to work toward not making the same mistake again. I can also understand why (under the circumstances) you have made these edits to my anthology four years ago. There were only two poets in the book (confirmed by wp:rs). I see no reason to keep it a secret after all these years, irrespective of its significance or lack of thereof, on the World Stage.[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9] All best, Poeticbent talk 19:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Malick78,

Good day. I have read about how to properly respond to an editor, and I have watched tutorials as well.

This is my first-ever attempt to contact a Wikipedia editor; so if I have made any mistakes in form, please excuse me.

I have tried to tag you in my response but nothing seemed to work. So, I hope that this attempt to engage you works.

I also explain why at the end of this note why I am personally making these comments. Finally, I have written my real name for all of Wikipedia's community to see in order to be as transparent as possible.

I look forward to hearing from you, and I do hope that I have treated you with respect. If there is any language used by me that you find not respectful, please let me know and I will amend the offensive language.

Kind regards,

Ronald K. Noble

Malick78 edits to the Wikipedia page about me violate Wikipedia’s “standards (which) require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people….” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Enforcement#Enforcement by citing a biased sourced article based and by misrepresenting or misleading the reader about the content of the cited article in a way which discredits a living person. As of this date, 6 December 2015, I am assuming that all errors were made in good faith.

I. Bias: The obvious point of bias is contained in the following sentence used by editor Malick78: “BBC journalist John Sweeney has criticised Noble for endorsing the KGB's investigation, citing critique by the suspect Dmitry Konovalov's mother, Lyubov Kovalyova.” It is one of the most well-established principles of evidentiary law that loving parents are biased in favor of their children. “Typical associations that form the basis for showing bias are family relationships (e.g. mother, father…)” A Practical Guide to Federal evidence, Anthony J. Bocchino, ‎David A. Sonenshein, 2006. Editor Malick78’s response to the challenge of a mother’s bias is “no, citing a mother isn’t always biased.” That’s true, when the mother’s opinion contradicts her natural bias: a loving mother who testifies against her son in a criminal prosecution would not be considered biased. But a loving mother who criticizes the investigation that led to her son’s arrest and conviction would obviously be considered biased. Wikipedia advises editors to “use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules.” For this reason alone, editor Malick78’s post violated Wikipedia’s standards requiring neutrality.

II. Verifiability & Reliability: Editor Malick78 has included factual statements that are proven false based on a simple reading of the article that cited by him/her. A. Editor Malick78’s entry states “John Sweeney has criticized Noble for endorsing the KGB's investigation.” False: 1. Nowhere does the cited article say that Noble endorsed the KGB investigation. The cited article states: “The following month Secretary General Noble arrived in Minsk and praised ‘the high professionalism’ of the Interior Ministry officials for solving the case so quickly - long before their trial took place.” Moreover, the cited article expressly states: “The Secretary General seemed unaware that the KGB led the investigation….”http://www.bbc.com/news/world-19012541 B. Editor Malick78’s entry misleads the reader by implying that the convicted murderer’s mother criticized Noble. He writes: “BBC journalist John Sweeney has criticised Noble for endorsing the KGB's investigation, citing critique by the suspect Dmitry Konovalov's mother, Lyubov Kovalyova.” In fact, the mother never made one reference directly or indirectly to Noble in the cited article. She criticized the investigation itself.

III. Respect for living people: Wikipedia’s standards show a deep concern for protecting living persons from biased, false and misleading entries about them. I quote: “Purpose: Because living persons may suffer personal harm from inappropriate information, we should watch their articles carefully. This category exists to help Wikipedia editors improve the quality of biographies of living persons by ensuring that the articles maintain a neutral point of view, maintain factual accuracy, and are properly sourced.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Living_people Editor Malick78 has submitted entries that were not neutral; were inaccurate and were not properly sourced. Example: Editor Malick78 has created a heading in my personal biograph entitled “Criticism for response to Belarus metro bombing.” His entry then misleads the reader into thinking that the independent institution of the BBC and its reporter John Sweeney have produced a neutral article that criticizes me. In fact, the article uses a loving mother’s criticism of the investigation that led to her son’s arrest and conviction for a terrorist attack where 15 innocent persons were killed and injured many more injured. Editor Malick78 distorts the article into making it appear that the mother was criticizing me. The placement of this section in a Wikipedia personal biography page about me limits my ability to set the record straight. Instead of making corrections in the Wikipedia article entitled “Belarus Metro Bombing” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Minsk_Metro_bombing where my voice as an editor could be deemed as neutral, I must correct it on a Wikipedia page about me, where any edits by me would appear biased.

IV. Wikipedia the Encyclopedia and Editor Malick78 I have read some of Editor Malick78’s articles in Wikipedia. Many reflect exhaustive and careful research. He or she has rightfully received compliments for the care taking in creating and editing some of these articles. My dispute with him/her here does not go to his/her integrity or good faith. Instead, it goes to the heart of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I quote from Wikipedia’s own stated purpose which is : “to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge within its five pillars.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose Indeed, “the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race.”Diderot[1] It is my hope that Editor Malick78 will take this long note not as an attack on him/her personally, but as a correction that I hope will lead to a decision by him to exclude from this page of this section, a biased criticism from the mother of a convicted murderer criticizing an investigation--and not me. As I have already said, if Editor Malick78 wishes to highlight criticism of the investigation of the Belarus metro bombing, there is an article that has been created for that purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Minsk_Metro_bombing

I allowed this biased entry entitled "Belarus Metro Bombing Controversy" that violated Wikipedia's standards to remain visible on my Wikipedia biographical page for years while I was a public servant. Please see the comments of Robofish entered on the 22 August 2012 which I quote here: ":This article recently had a section added criticising Noble's comments on the Belarus metro bombing case, where he praised the investigation and congratulated the authorities for capturing the suspects before the trial had taken place. This section is currently unsourced. I believe it was based on a recent film report by the BBC, available to British viewers here:[2] However, that doesn't seem to me like an ideal source because of its nature: does anyone have a text-based one, preferably available online, that we can use? Robofish (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)" While INTERPOL Secretary General, I did not allow any of my public affairs team to remove this section. I was accountable to 190 member countries as Secretary General. Any one of these countries could have asked me to explain my comments, but not one country did.

Now, as a private citizen without an institution to protect me, I will insist that any Wikipedia editor who wishes to use my biography to criticize an event like the 2011 Belarus Metro Bombing play by Wikipedia's rules. Moreover, if the editor wishes to criticize the event, then he or she do it in a forum dedicated to the event; so each of us can have a fair and equal opportunity to find neutral point of view, verifiable and reliable sources about the event in question. But, if an editor wishes to criticize a living person who is a private citizen in that private citizen's biography, then that editor should take special care to make sure that his or her edits reflect a neutral point of view and that his or her sources are verifiable and neutral. He or she should not camouflage or mischaracterize the biased opinion of a mother as a neutral point of view.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- not a talk forum for a Wikipedia editor to advance a mother's obviously biased opinion about her convicted son's case having been improperly investigated and then to mischaracterize that biased criticism of an investigation as a NPOV criticism of a living person.

Ronald K. Noble, 7 December 2015

RKN888 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey, on the Forza Italia talk page we're discussing whether "and convicted criminal" should be added to the description of Silvio Berlusconi in the lead, and also whether we should say that in the article about Berlusconi himself. We could use a few more voices, do you care to chime in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.60.84.2 (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eastbourne pier 1870.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I brought an error on your User page to your attention and your response was boorish and bullying. You seemed obsessed with the penis as a term of disdain, and I won't have you threaten me for correcting your English. You should have corrected your error, but you have refused to do so. Autodidact1 (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

• You were rude by editing my private user page: you can edit anything on WP but not user pages. The user edits them. Hence, you were a dick for breaking that rule. You've been editing a couple of years, so you must know this. Use talk pages. Secondly, you were wrong about the verb you were correcting and hadn't even checked a dictionary. "Polish off" can mean to finish, as evidenced here. That's why you're a dick. Malick78 (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Malick, behave, or editors can get you banned on the recent comments you've made. Stay civil at all times.

Hmm, well, in 1970 women were still banned from frequenting Wimpy's on their own late at night - because they would likely be a prostitute! Read the last few paras of this BBC article on Thatcher to see it mentioned. That titbit surely has to go in the article, but where?? :) Malick78 (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's taken four years, but I added that interesting piece to the Wimpy (restaurant) article today. Though I left out the assumption that they were prostitutes, leaving the explanation up to each reader. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Great! Malick78 (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Although I was aware from the recent View history and talk pages that you had been involved in the Adams article, I didn’t realise until I saw your User Page the extent of your involvement in many aspects of his life and case, which deserve congratulations. I think that our viewpoints differ, but there should be room for both. The more thorough sources rely on different things; Cullen and Hallworth on the police investigation, Bedford and Devlin on evidence at trial and Hoskins and Surtees on a range of issues. The police investigation wasn’t perfect: both Cullen and Devlin question Hannam’s fixation on a financial motive, Delvin thinks the investigation was hasty and Cullen criticises a failure to investigate the Duke of Devonshire’s death. More significantly, there is a difference between what the investigators may have thought incriminating and what prosecuting counsel needed for a sustainable case. The idea that Manningham-Buller deliberately chose a weak case because of political interference (or even did so carelessly) falls away when it becomes clear what he needed was to prove murder. Based on his opening speech, he seemed to have a strong case in Morrell, even though the wheels came off it quickly.

Mrs Hullett died on 23rd July 1956, and her inquest was formally opened and adjourned on the same day (Devlin, pp. ix, 15). On the same day, the Eastbourne police opened an investigation into her death, either because the coroner referred it (Devlin, p. 15) or following an anonymous call (Cullen, pp. 15-17). It was taken over by the Metropolitan police on 17th August (Cullen, p. 40) and extended in scope. Mrs. Morell’s nurses were interviewed in August 1956 (Devlin, p. 63), and made statements that Adams gave all her injections, usually when they were out of the room, and they were unaware what they contained (Devlin, p. 60). Cullen (pp. 593, 598) extends Adam’s failure or refusal to disclose to attending nurses what he was injecting to other cases, and adds that he isolated patients from their families. The police also became aware of his lavish use of heroin and morphia (morphine) (Devlin, p. 53) and obtained lists of the amounts supplied to Adams since 1950 at an early stage.

On 1st October 1956, Hannam (who knew the quantity of drugs prescribed, but not how much had been injected, and who needed evidence of motive), had a conversation with Adams about gifts and legacies from Mr and Mrs Hullett and Mrs. Morell, and possibly others (Devlin, pp. 21-2). He had already formed the view the motive was money and never revised his opinion (Cullen, p. 637), (Devlin, p. 20), probably exaggerating the cash involved (Devlin, p. 10).

On 24th November, the police executed a search warrant of Adam’s home and surgery under the Dangerous Drugs Act, looking for opiate drugs: at the same time, Hannam presented him with a list of such drugs supplied by pharmacists. The aim was to see, as Devlin says (p. 53), whether any unused drugs had been hoarded. He also obtained Adam’s admission that he had administered nearly all injections himself (Devlin, pp. 23, 54).

Devlin states that, to succeed in the trial of a murder case against Adams, the prosecution had to show, firstly, there had been an unnatural death, secondly, an act by Adams was capable of being murderous (such as an injection so large as to cause death) and finally Adams’ intent to kill (Devlin, pp. 122-3). It was not strictly necessary to prove a motive but, without one, it had to be shown Adams’ actions could only be interpreted as intentional murder (Devlin, p. 123). By 26th November 1956, Hannam had completed enquiries into around a dozen cases, including those of Mrs. Morell, Mr and Mrs Hullett and Mr Downs, these four being the only ones in which evidence was put on oath (Devlin, pp. 24-5). Cullen mentions Mrs. Morell, Mrs Hullett, Clara Neil Miller and Julia Bradnum as cases that Hannam regarded as warranting prosecution, and also Mr Hullett (pp. 250, 636).

As far as can be determined from Hannam’s methodology, he focussed on motive. His starting point was to see from whose wills Adams had benefitted; if Adams was known to have exerted influence on the patient to leave him a legacy, this was further grounds for suspicion; if the patient had received treatment from Adams and died soon after, this was another black mark, made worse by indications of over-prescribing, and if Adams subsequently reacted in a suspicious way, this completed the picture.

The fallacy of this approach is seen in the cases of Mr Hullett, Clara Miller and Julia Bradnum as, before going into motive, there needed to be a murder. Mr Hullett’s case was mentioned at the committal (Devlin, pp. 12, 31, 145). He had been operated on for a colon cancer but it was likely to be fatal eventually. Around four months after the operation, he was taken ill. Adams was called and gave him a morphia injection at 10.30 pm. Hullett slept until 6 am, woke up and spoke briefly before going back to sleep, and died soon after. At the committal, based on an Adams prescription for 5 grains of morphia, it was alleged he had injected Hullett with this amount, a fatal dose. However, under cross-examination the Crown’s expert witness admitted that Hullett could not have woken up and held a brief conversation the next morning after a 5 grain injection, so a smaller, non-lethal injection was probable. He also accepted that Hullett died from a heart attack, as Adams had said (Devlin, 12, 31). The bodies of both Clara Miller and Julia Bradnum were exhumed. The pathologist concluded that the former had died from pneumonia that might have been aggravated by drugs prescribed by Adams (Cullen, p. 143): the condition of the latter’s body did not allow a cause of death to be stated (Cullen, pp. 107-8). However strong any apparent financial motive or however suspicious Adam’s misstatement of the causes of the two women’s deaths, there could be no trial for murder where an unnatural death could not be proved.

Mrs Hullett had died an unnatural death, of a barbiturate overdose (Devlin, pp. 13-14), and Adam’s reaction in denying any possibility of poisoning was highly suspicious, as was his extraction of a cheque for £1,000 from her a few days before her death. Devlin, while not ruling out Adams assisted in her suicide in some way, considers it was an obvious case of suicide, and a suggestion that Adams made a secret, unobserved visit to persuaded her to take barbiturates was improbable (Devlin, pp. 31-2, 218). However, as there was no evidence that Adams had prescribed a large quantity of barbiturates rather than, as he said, giving her a dose daily, Devlin could not go beyond suspicion (pp. 198, 218).

Devlin was aware in 1985 that some considered Mrs Hullett’s case was stronger (pp. 8, 11), referring to Hallworth and Williams’ book published in 1983, after the deaths of Manningham-Buller, Adams and also Hannam. This quotes Charles Hewitt, who was a Hannam’s detective sergeant, as blaming the prosecution for choosing the Morrell charge for trial over others and Manningham-Buller for failing to gain a conviction (Hallworth and Williams, pp. 58, 61). Hewett in particular mentioned Hilda and Clara Neil Miller as better cases, despite inconclusive autopsies (Hallworth and Williams, p. 41), (Devlin, p. 25). Cullen (p. 636) mentions Hannam had selected Mrs. Morell, Mrs Hullett, Clara Neil Miller and Julia Bradnum without stating he had any preferences, but records her own view that Morrell was the weakest of those four (Cullen p. 636). Devlin believed that Mrs Morrell’s case was the strongest of the four where evidence was on oath and that, had Mrs Hullett’s case been brought to trial after Adams’ first acquittal, a second acquittal was virtually certain (Devlin, pp. 25, 179). Considering Devlin’s analysis of what was needed to prove murder none of Clara and Hilda Neil Miller, Julia Bradnum or Mr Hullett could be proven to have died unnatural deaths.

Sources Pamela Cullen (2006). A Stranger in Blood: The Case Files on Dr John Bodkin Adams. London: Elliott & Thompson. ISBN 1-904027-19-9.

Patrick Devlin, (1985). Easing the passing: The trial of Doctor John Bodkin Adams. London: The Bodley Head. ISBN 0-571-13993-0.

Rodney Hallworth and Mark Williams (1983). Where there's a will... The sensational life of Dr John Bodkin Adams. Jersey: Capstan Press. ISBN 0-946797-00-5.

I have no intention of putting this amount of information into the article, but adding two sentences, one on Devlin's counter-view, the second on his reasoning balances the subsection on Case selection. However, once the balance is added, there is the question of whether there should be a new section Pre-trail, including Case selection and Committal hearing (which isn't really part of the Police investigation).

Your views would be welcome.

Sscoulsdon (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Hello, thanks for your comments! I'm very busy right now so I'll come back to them in a couple of days, but I thought I'd underline my view on Devlin: he had an amazing mind and wrote clearly and brilliantly, but his book is hamstrung by two, perhaps threee, things. A) he didn't have access to the amount of evidence needed to get to the bottom of things, i.e. the police files. Secondly, as an esteemed member of the judiciary, he was overcautious in criticising Adams, after all - he'd been acquitted. Devlin was loathe to overly criticise British justice, the prosecution or the police. He had to think of his reputation, position and posterity. Lastly, did he really understand the mind of a serial killer? This was the early 80s and he was aging, perhaps not aware of the latest thinking on the matter. What do you think? Malick78 (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this: there are perhaps four comments I could make. Firstly, in 1957, as in 2017, it was the job of the police to investigate a reported crime, to determine if a crime has been committed and arrest a suspect. It was then the job of the Director of Public Prosecutions, or in very serious cases of the Attorney- or Solicitor-General (now just the Crown Prosecution Service) to review the police case and decide whether to prosecute and, in more serious cases, what to prosecute: this was not the police's job. Secondly, what case to prosecute depends on legal issues, not just the police investigation. The two, but connected, legal issues here were that in 1957 a single indictment could only include one murder, and evidence from other investigations was not admissible, which limited the prosecutions options. Thirdly, although I have referenced Devlin, the purely factual case of Mr Hullett, where the defence at the committal hearing got the Crown's expert medical witness to admit that Mr Hullett could not have been killed by a 5 grain heroin injection, but probably died of a heart attack shows that, in this case at least, the police could be wrong on what was a suitable case. Finally, the issue here is not whether Adams murdered any or many people, but only the case selection for trial.

Hewitt blamed the prosecution for choosing the Morrell charge over Mrs Hullett. From the police's point of view, this seems credible. However, the Attorney-General had evidence that Adams had prescribed large quantities of opiates to Mrs Morrell, Adams' own admissions that he had used all these on Mrs Morrell and injected all or almost all of them himself, and a medical expert's testimony that the only possible reason to inject so much over a short time was to kill her. This was, at the outset, arguably a better case than that for Mrs Hullett, where Adams had made no admission beyond giving her two barbiturate tablets daily, which she could have hoarded.

I'm not suggesting removing what Hewitt said, but it is not the last word on the matter, and should be balanced by saying that the Attorney-General had an arguable case for choosing Mrs Morrell and leaving it for readers to form their own judgement.

Regards,

Sscoulsdon (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Titica 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/Titica 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. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Greetings! I have started a requested move discussion at Talk:Pączki#Requested move 2 January 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks — Kpalion^(talk) 16:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear Malick78,

I am prompted to contact by your reversion of an edit I made in Patrick Devlin, Baron Devlin on 28th March 2019. Although relatively minor in itself, in brings into question your excessive reliance on a single source, that of Patricia Cullen.

You substantially enlarged the article on John Bodkin Adams in February and March 2006, with no more than around a dozen citations, mostly from Cullen and, although you did add further citations and page numbers later, the vast majority were to Cullen. As early as your comments in the Talk section of John Bodkin Adams of November 2007 and August 2009, you make your almost complete reliance on Cullen clear, and use her as justification for an NPOV issue of calling him a serial killer. Cullen is not the only source, or even the only source who has read the police archives: such sources as Robins, "The Curious Habits of Dr Adams: A 1950s Murder Mystery" and Mahar, "Easing the Passing: R v Adams and Terminal Care in Post-war Britain" who have read the archives but, firstly, read them more thoroughly and, secondly without intruding their own opinions need to be considered.

The unreliability of Cullen can be considered under five headings. First are her claims, for example that Adams was already Mrs Morell's doctor before her stroke, treated her and started opiate injections there and brought her back to Eastbourne or that Herbert Hannam was promoted to Commander in the Metropolitan Police after Adams' trial rather than being subject to disciplinary proceedings. Next are her misrepresentations, for example that Nolle prosequi left Adams under any real danger of subsequent prosecution or that Manningham-Buller alone was responsible for the decision to prosecute the Morell casem whereas he relied on the opinions of a pathologist and a recognised authority on opiates, assuring him that the amounts of opiates prescribed for Mrs Morrell would undoubtedly have been fatal. Third is what Cullen doesn't say, presumably intentionally: that Hannam's Chief Superintendent and Commander initially thought Hannam's case was speculative, based on rumour and unprovabled and the Director of Public Prosecutions agreed or, partly quoting Devlin, that Manningham-Buller's abuse of process was allowing suspicion to remain. Fourth is her reliance on gossip unfavourable to Adams or Lord Goddard to create prejudice and finally is Cullen's eagerness to embrace fantastic conspiracy theories such as Manningham-Buller deloberately sabotaging the prosecution of Adams, when the incompetence of the police and prosecuting counsel are adequate explanations.

It is always dangerous to rely on a single source, but relying on one so obviously partial as Cullen robs much of what you wrote of credibility.

Turning to Lord Devlin, the subject of that article is Devlin's life and work. The subject of the Adams trial is relevant to this, his decision to grant Adams bail and Lord Goddard's telephone call are also relevant. However, the opening words of the section you introduce "Unknown to Devlin..." show its irrelevance to Devlin, as his decision could not have been affected by what he did not know anything about. The passage is very much in Cullen's style of insinuation, and presumably we are to infer that Gwynne asked Goddard to intervene, for which there is no evidence.

The passage might have some relevance in the article on Lord Goddard, although your interest in the Talk section of that article on Lord Goddard's sexual practices might suggest some confusion on your part as to relevance. It is probably less relevant in John Bodkin Adams, and a lot of Cullen's comments, which she herself admits are gossip could well be trimmed. I am deleting the passage from the Devlin article a second time for good cause, and suggest that you leave it that way.

Regards

Sscoulsdon (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Juozas Imbrasas has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Snowycats (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

And remember, WP:NPA and WP:FOC You shouldn't need such reminders. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I've made a correction to the article Catherine Wilson which you started, which is explained on the talk page there. I'm letting you know this because what I've changed was on the original page you created. Sarandone2 (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Margot (activist) 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/Margot (activist) 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. Nadzik (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. You have no right to delete data with sources without consensus.The data complies with Wikipedia policy. If you have a different opinion then present arguments + evidence and wait for consensus. Deleting data with sources without consensus and based on your opinion is vandalism. The discussion is open. Next time your account will be submitted for blocking. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah right. I'm following WP policy, you're an anti-trans bigot who can't understand policy. Malick78 (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

  This is just your interpretation. This is debatable topic. The discussion is still ongoing. Nobody has the right to delete data with reliable sources without consensus if there are objections by other users. It doesn't matter that you have your opinion - you have the right to own opinion, you have the right to express your opinion in the discussion but no have any rights to delete data with reliable sources without consensus if there are objections by other users. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why delete whole section [10]? This has nothing to do with the previous discussion or any other arguments. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

• For those who see this 'vandalism' tag, here's an update: Subtropical just got a ban for his behaviour. The tag was inappropriate and sheer petty bullying. Malick78 (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at Margot (activist) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Understood! Please remember that it is a BLP, and I was reverting harmful and malicious content. Malick78 (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Videocracy 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/Videocracy 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.

Daask (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Malick78/Medvedev requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Margot (activist) 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/Margot (activist) (2nd nomination) 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.

GizzyCatBella🍁 07:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Adams Trial has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply