User talk:Icairns

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Field hockey shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 20:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK - it doesn't count if you are vandalising. Ian Cairns (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Field hockey. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 21:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you were not an admin, I would have pulled your rollback ability for this incident, as you have greatly misused the rollback tool. Courcelles 21:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I was discussing the content dispute with the editor who had disrupted the consensus. If you block Admins for this, then I might as well resign and give up. Your choice. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The issue is that you were blatantly edit-warring with rollback. Note that diva-ish threats to retire do not help unblock requests.

Please also see WP:H—it is not appropriate to refer to the other edit warrior's edits as vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you wish to declare hockey = Ice Hockey, then fine. Hockey used to be dependent on the dominant usage. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made four reverts, you grossly misused rollback (and I remind you that WP:ROLLBACK says that in case of repeated misuse, ArbCom may revoke someone's adminship, as the only way to remove rollback from an admin is a desysop, so this mis-use of your administrator access), and declared without basis that another editor was vandalizing. Any editor would have gotten blocked for what you did, and that you're an admin has zero meaning in cases of WP:3RR violations. Possessing admin access is not diplomatic immunity. Courcelles 21:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I cannot clear my username. I have no wish to be part of this. There was a consensus. An editor changed the consensus. I reverted. I was blocked. I was prevented from cvlearing my username. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I said the user was vandalising above - no-one disagreed. No-one is supporting my position - I want out. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am no diva - goodnight. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, getting blocked for edit warring is not the end of the world. Just avoid edit warring in the future, and nobody will really care. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user broke existing consensus - I reverted. He had me blocked. No-one believed me. Goodnight. The moment I can edit my user page again, I will clear and exit. I have no wish to be part of this. I am no diva. I am real. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could any admin reading this please unprotect my user page, and I will remove myself, as mentioned above. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:DIVA and WP:Hitler, please can I refer you to my user page User:Icairns where I hope I assured the world that I was not stuck up. Any assertion to the contrary needs proof. Ian Cairns (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user is obviously in North America, where "hockey" generally refers to ice hockey; it was extremely naive, to put it mildly, to assume that this must be the case the world over, but people sometimes do stupid things. I can't deny that your handling of the ridiculous edit left a lot to be desired, but it would be a great shame if you were to quit over something that could be so easily resolved by discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments - I thought so too. However, it seems that Wiki rules work in mysterious ways. Maybe I could have handled it better - If I had an indefinite amount of time, I could have handled many things better than I may have. I accept your characterisation of the user's editing - it concurs with my description of my documented motivation to correct the issues raised. However, this was not enough to prevent me being blocked. Maybe my vision of an Anglo-American WP future is short-sighted; maybe Wikipedia is becoming North American because of the overwhelming numbers. If so, I am in the wrong place. I need out. I insist that I am no diva. I have been 110% committed to the WP ideal - until now. I appreciate your support above - but you are now in a smaller community of WP editors. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that user Icairns, with the above "blot" on his editing record, will not be re-joining Wikipedia. As soon as I am able to edit again, I will resign / withdraw. I do not take lightly to walking away from 7-8 yrs editing (and a 25/0/0/ admin vote) - but I will not stand accused of failing to engage an errant user in content dispute discussions when I clearly did so. Others may think this a 'not the end of the world' matter, but I do. Ian Cairns (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block log barnstar

		The block log Barnstar
		(award details) - I would like to use this opportunity to thank User:Icairns for his fine contributions to Wikipedia over the years and welcome him to the contributors that got a little heated club and allegedly made that caring extra revert. Many thanks for all your work here. Respect and best wishes to you from You really can 21:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to apologise to anyone who followed my career in Wikipedia - I actually cared. It saddens me that we are now going to get a Canadian-centric view of Hockey going forward. I played hockey (=field hockey for any Canadians listening) for over 25 yrs. There was a consensus that we would call / use "hockey" for the dominant form in each particular country. It is now de facto = ice hockey. This isn't the Wikipedia I joined. Good luck everyone! Ian Cairns (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to resign on the Bureaucrats' noticeboards, but am currently prevented. I will do so when next enabled or if anyone wishes to edit the board on my behalf. Thanks, 22:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

My imminent departure

Editor: 7 yrs 9 months, 19 days (>2850 days) Admin: 6 yrs 11 months 17 days (>2500 days) Edits: 76,800+ (>26 per day) plus all the thousands of interwiki tool edits.

No WP:DIVA, No WP:Hitler, no WP:SOAPBOX.

Say hello, wave goodbye. Ian Cairns (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Lancastrians

Category:Old Lancastrians, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I rather wish I'd seen this conflict sooner; it is a sad day to lose such an editor as yourself. To the only admin to block me (albeit on accident), here's hoping you return. TeaDrinker (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Paludians

Category:Old Paludians, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New cfds regarding "Old Fooians"

Further to the above from BrownHairedGirl, two new cfds propose the renaming of some twenty categories. Most of those who took part in last year's cfd "Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom" seem unaware of them, so I am notifying all those who took part in that discussion, to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Please consider contributing here and here. Moonraker (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dutch Wikipedia

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

Non-notable website, per WP:NOTABLE, composed of first-hand sources.

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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Genealogics templates

A tag has been placed on Template:Genealogics photo and Template:Genealogics descent requesting that they be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because they are deprecated or orphaned templates. After seven days, if they are still unused and the speedy deletion tags have not been removed, the templates will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. DrKiernan (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Alexanderspotswood.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alexanderspotswood.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metaphysical cosmology

Category:Metaphysical cosmology, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Greg Bard (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Companies associated with ICL

Category:Companies associated with ICL, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foundation degrees

Category:Foundation degrees, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. SL 7968 05:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:SGSbadge.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Icairns.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Icairns.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artists by publisher

Category:Artists by publisher, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

"I have been 110% committed to the WP ideal"
Thank you, editor "110% committed to the WP ideal", with knowledge of European languages, for quality articles such as Roger Elliott and succession, Institute of Cancer Research and other places of higher learning, for fighting vandalism and warning users, for gnomish work such as moving articles and creating stubs, redirects and categories, for improving articles by an infobox, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (12 January 2010) and sadly missed!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rogerelliott.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rogerelliott.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Granvilleelliott3.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Granvilleelliott3.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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emila Dering listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Emila Dering. Since you had some involvement with the Emila Dering redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Genealogics

Template:Genealogics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Granvilleelliott3.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Granvilleelliott3.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.

Also:

File:Rogerelliott.jpg

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Elastance for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elastance 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/Elastance 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. The Banner talk 22:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal to upmerge an "Accidental explosion disasters" category

Upmerge Category:Accidental explosion disasters in the United States into Category:Industrial fires and explosions in the United States Hugo999 Hugo999 (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Musical groups by numbers has been nominated for discussion

Category:Musical groups by numbers, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:SI dimensionless units

Template:SI dimensionless units has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chancellors by university has been nominated for discussion

Category:Chancellors by university, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of River Broadwater for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article River Broadwater 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/River Broadwater 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. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:934 births

A tag has been placed on Category:934 births requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Dooranee Empire has been nominated for upmerging

Category:Recipients of the Order of the Dooranee Empire has been nominated for upmerging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Catherine Killigrew for deletion

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

Surtsicna (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Slug (projectile)

The article Slug (projectile) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

dictionary definition MOS:NOTDIC

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. rsjaffe talk 23:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:4-polytopes

Template:4-polytopes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Latest stable software release/Apache HTTP Server

Template:Latest stable software release/Apache HTTP Server has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chevaliers of the Order of Merit (Ukraine) has been nominated for discussion

Category:Chevaliers of the Order of Merit (Ukraine) has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Baronnet (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Comprehensive schools in England

A tag has been placed on Category:Comprehensive schools in England indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkl talk 09:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 31 § High schools and secondary schools

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 31 § High schools and secondary schools on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Dilly Braimoh

Hello Icairns, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Dilly Braimoh, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilly Braimoh (2nd nomination).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Velella}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]