User talk:Iamcuriousblue

Archives

2006–2007

Don't Forget the Sex Work Task Force!

Hey, haven't seen you around in awhile! Please head to the discussion board on our project for a bunch of posts I did awhile ago. Love to hear your input and see your work!--NoMonaLisa (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case

An arbitration case has been filed involving you: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#iamcuriousblue Appropriate links will also be given on the Melissa Farley entry talk page . axiomatica (talk) Axiomatica (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, got your message and will reluctantly seewhat I can do CyntWorkStuff (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Farley

I come here from WP:3O. I think this should be resubmitted to formal mediation (not arbitration), but given that User:axiomatica says the subject of the article requested that content be blanked, Dr. Farley should be invited to participate in the mediation process directly. If blanking is the only outcome acceptable to her (if she claims that she is non-notable, for example, or she believes the article is an undue invasion of privacy), this should go to WP:Afd as well. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs...

I removed a few links on the alt porn article because someone had put some spam (yahoo search for redtube videos, a double whammy in terms of inappropriate link), and given the number of external links that may be dated, I quickly clicked a few suspicious ones that could be removed according to WP:EL. Blogs are allowed if they are written by a recognized authority, but this is rarely the case or, on this matter, it is hard to establish what is a recognized authority. I'm not the type to edit pornography related article in general (wandered there through video sharing website article, also prone to spam), but if some of the links I removed (particularly blogs) were meant as reference, they should be made as footnotes in a reference/footnote section (using reference tags and templates), and the links should point to the appropriate post, instead of having a the main blog page put in some random place in an external links section (unless, again, said blog is by a recognized authority, but that's hard to define/prove). That being said, aside from the forum and the dead link that have no reason to be there, I won't edit that article again if you reinstate the removed blog links.--Boffob (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AdrionackMan

If you're asking for mediation, I'm all for it. As it happens I am leaving this article behind in favor of another interest. I think the articles on the Emergency Alert System, Emergency Broadcast System and CONELRAD could use some work. Want to help? AdirondackMan (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not looking to seek a battle with you. I'd like to prefer working with you if possible. AdirondackMan (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for mediation if Axiomatica even bothers to show up again. Its been well over two months now and I consider that editor to be no longer an active party at this point. As I said, I'm probably going to issue an RfC soon and settle any remaining neutrality issues that way. Thanks for the offer on the various articles, but those areas aren't really one's that I know much about, so I don't think I'd have much of value to contribute. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have had a pretty rough start here on Wikipedia, but I'm looking to work more at peace with others. To that end I'm backing out of this war with Axiomatica. Got enough headaches off the wiki as it is right now. AdirondackMan (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So as a new start, would it please you to withdraw the complaint to user:Scientizzle? Thanks. AdirondackMan (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:KawasakiOyasumi.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:KawasakiOyasumi.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PORNBIO

As a member of WikiProject Pornography, I'm just letting you know there's currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography about changing the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Your opinions would be appreciated. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura J. Lederer

Sorry for all the WikiDrama involving you. I won't reply to Tiptext any more; he's now crossed the line to vandalism, and I don't think that trying to engage him in a discussion will bear good results. Yours, Huon (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. I thought some explanation of where I was coming from and what the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia are might channel that editor toward more productive collaboration. In any event, he's contributed the beginnings of a good article, just needs some change in language, fleshing out, and rewriting parts of it so it reads less like a resume. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KINK.com

Discussion moved to Talk:Kink.com.

CfD nomination of Category:Adult movie awards

Abbywinters.com

Apparently mediation had been opened here regarding the inclusion or not of the use of the blogs and forums on the article. Since you voiced an opinion, perhaps you would like to add your name to the involved parties. Law_{type! snype?} 06:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zafira

Hi. I will probably propose it for deletion soon, because I do not see the notability criteria fulfilled as defined by WP:PORNBIO. I think it's polite to let you know, as you are the creator of the article. --Tchoř (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I created it, I thought she might qualify based on the appearance in the Shai ad. In retrospect, that was not a major product ad, considering the company is not even in business a few years later. She does seem to be highly prolific, appearing in a large number of videos and websites, but the same could be said to be true of a lot of Central European porn performers who, outside of porn circles at least, lack name recognition even in their home countries. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Feminists

As you're aware, the primary editor of New York Radical Feminists has been acting inappropriate lately, towards you, and towards me as well. This is all the more strange given the absolute lack of content editing I have done on that article (or even similar articles), and the very minor edits you made and that I restored (those have been my only content edits); my actions on the article were almost exclusively related to the removal of template tags that you originally added (which were entirely appropriate). This editor has had similar edits in the past, and has also made their commentary almost entirely in the edit summary on articles, as opposed to in an open forum, such as a talk page. I wanted to let you know that this editor has now referenced our changes on their user page. I'm also curious as to what the appropriate action is on the NYRF page. My only concern was basic WP procedure on the page; I have no idea about the content, but since you're familiar with the issue, I'm interested in your input. Shadowjams (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there were recent edits to the NYRF article by this author, and it consisted of her removing all material based on Alice Echols book or other sources she happened to disagree with. This editor's actions are highly aggressive and inappropriate and clearly not in keeping with Wikipedia's rules. I'm going to try and get an administrator to intervene, though if I can't do that, I'll put forward an "request for discussion" to bring more editors in on this. In the meantime, if you can help me revert inappropriate edits to the article, that would be helpful. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution Process

Hello, Iamcuriousblue. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the Dispute Resolution Process by posting in WQA. Please note that it is recommended that you advise the other party of your complaint filing so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to respond.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Request

Do you still have Image:SDDM100.jpg that was deleted from the Lesbianism in erotica article? CultistBlue (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You can email me about it here: Special:EmailUser/Iamcuriousblue. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

OK I put a different tag in. I think this suits the purpose. In general tags can't be subst'ed usefully because the categorization breaks, among other things. If this is still a problem you could see if one of the generic cleanup tags allows a custom message/ Rich Farmbrough, 10:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for this. The template you used approximately covers my issues with the citations in that article, though I also wanted to point out that the bibliographic style itself needs cleanup, since its difficult to tell in some cases whether what's being referred to is a primary source that's very difficult to verify or whether its a published (hard copy or internet) document that others can find. The questions arise because the primary editor of the Noreen Connell article had included clear original research in a related article, New York Radical Feminists. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

I don't think it is acceptable or particularly reliable in this instance, please find evidence of it being reported on by a third party source. This not only lends more credibility to the verbiage, but also helps avoid WP:UNDUE weight. JBsupreme (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I specifically pointed to the next section as well, WP:SELFPUB, although you don't seemed have read it. I quote:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Its patently obvious that the SuicideGirls website is a valid source for an article on SuicideGirls. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on deleting this material, but your reasoning strikes me as pretty dodgy and based on a basic misunderstanding of what is and isn't an appropriate use of primary sources, per WP:VERIFY. Hence, I'm going to continue to revert unless you can provide some justification for your edits beyond "its a primary source". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apology...

...and raise you one. I was too harsh. I am very sensitive to the history of this article where meat puppets and anons have been at war for ages and ages. And I know that anything about her birth date in the article probably scares the subject to death as that is how you find her birth record, and she wants to maintain the fiction that she never changed her name. So when you showed up with "blue" in your name, I did not give you a fair shake. --BenBurch (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. And sorry if I was too harsh or if I implied that any edit on your part would create COI issues. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really have no interest that would conflict. I think very little of the subject, this is true, when I think of the subject at all, but I think Henry Ford was a jew-hating piece of crap who helped Hitler, and I still edit his article. --BenBurch (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:70.62.27.102

Sorry what? this makes no sense to me. [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.27.102 (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you want commentary on the raw edit, but I assume you mean User talk:70.62.27.102#May 2009. I think that's all pretty straightforward. See WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:BLP – you need to pay attention to these policies in your Wikipedia contributions. Cheers – Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

x

lol. Yeago (talk) 05:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist views articles

One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Feminist views on prostitution appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.

I have to say, the Feminist views on prostitution article is one of the most unbalanced articles I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time. The Feminist views on prostitution, while more balanced, is unreferenced and basically factually inaccurate in much of its presentation of sex-positive feminism, and also not entirely accurate in how it presents the anti-porn feminist movement. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the entire article, I just transfered some relevant content in order to create a useful entry, while attempting to write a summary of what was already there.

I don't think it's inaccurate to say that radical feminism is a dominant current among the feminist movement, because it tends to serve as a type of social orthodoxy, as opposed to sex-positive feminism, which has a reputation for heterodoxy. When you examine the different feminist organizations, their leading activists often come from the radical feminist crowd because that group had arguably been the most vocal in its opposition to what it deems to be violence against women.

ADM (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do think its inaccurate, and if you're going to declare sex-positive and sex-worker feminism a minority view, then you damn well better have some sources conclusively proving that radical feminism is the majority view. (This is one of the many contentious statements you've failed to back up with proper references, by the way.) I'm familiar enough with the literature on feminism and pornography to know that such a statement and such a slanting of the article is unsupportable. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issues

I'm moving this to Talk:Prostitution #POV_Forks, because I think this point needs public discussion, and it concerns several articles that have been broken out from Prostitution. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dany Verissimo

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Dany Verissimo. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not "controversial", and it is referenced, though unfortunately, not properly footnoted at the moment. That's not sufficient reason to delete content, especially in a stub article like this where content can be readily checked against listed sources. Don't read French? Oh well – use an online translator. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annabel Chong

Heya... I was reverting some vandalism on this article, and I noticed the last reference in the article, the one entitled "From sex marathons to real marathons" doesn't work. In fact the source URL ain't there any more. Can you find this reference again? Tabercil (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Iamcuriousblue. You have new messages at Excesses's talk page.
Message added 15:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

~Excesses~ (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

123username

You seem to be into editing articles about prostitution, could you please have a look at Legality of prostitution. You've dealt with 123username before, I can't seem to get what I believe is Muslim bias out of that article without a possible revert war with him, I'd like your opinion on this. I think he may believe I have something against the Muslim faith, or something, I don't know, it seems pretty obvious to me that I'm right, but I feel way a lot of the time. Gigith (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic books plagiarism

I never got a response from Mgoodyear, which was a bit surprising. Were you able to identify any of the text in the book as belonging to you specifically? If so, you may want to make an official complaint to Atlantic books over the violation of your copyrights, although I never received a response from them myself. Alternately, you may want to contact Mike Godwin and ask if he has any advice on how to persue it further. Kaldari (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Goodyear is an intermittent contributor to Wikipedia, so he may not have logged in recently enough to have seen your message. I'll try and contact him directly about this – I know him from off-WP forums like Sex in the Public Square. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Iamcuriousblue! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 183 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Anja Laval - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this article, as first created it, was a direct translation from the corresponding article in German Wikipedia. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Anja Juliette Laval

The article Anja Juliette Laval has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, negative biography of a living person. Please do not remove this prod tag without sourcing the article.

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

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NW (Talk) 20:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feminists Fighting Pornography nominated for deletion

There's a nomination to delete or merge the article on Feminists Fighting Pornography. You've been a contributor, but it appears you weren't notified. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Raymond

Hi I amcuriousblue. I have noticed your editing at several articles. Although I don't think I'd agree with many of your views, you seem like a reasonably fair and careful editior. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a look at the Janice Raymond article. I removed BLP violations and biased material from it, but another editor restored them. Please help me to stop that from happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.30.64 (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking at it, I think that a lot of the language needs a cleanup, since there's clear bias and soapboxing going on. However, referenced discussion of the reactions of trans activists to Raymond's work should be included, so long as it does not take up undue weight. I'll try and do some of my own edits on it by this weekend. Cheers. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look. I think there are still problems with that article, however. My main concern is with the sentence that reads, "She has also created much controversy over her writings against transsexualism which many other feminists have criticized as extremely transphobic in nature." I understand that Wikipedia articles can have criticism of living people if it is properly sourced, but that sentence looks as though it is designed to emphasise the criticism of Raymond as much as possible, by stressing the number of people who disagree with her. It certainly doesn't look neutral at all. Even though there is a footnote mentioning some specific people by name, that sentence in the lead is still much too vague and too sweeping. I think it violates BLP written like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.27.210 (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only CAN it have criticism, if there is a non-trivial, citable and verifiable body of criticism, the article MUST include it. BLP does not trump NPOV (and exclusion of criticism to create an article that is favorable to the subject is decidedly not NPOV), something many proponents of "BLP culture" lose sight of. The footnote needs to be worked into the section on "views of trans people" rather than be a stand-alone footnote. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your attitude. The way the article is written is hardly in accord with NPOV. The sentence "She has also written extensively about transsexualism, and her views on transgender have met with great controversy, as they are viewed by many as transphobic" is very biased since it presents only criticism of Raymond and gives readers no idea that many feminists AGREE with her views about trans issues. I have tried to start a discussion about this on the talk page, but no one has replied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.27.210 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If her opinions are controversial and traceable to citable, verifiable sources, that should be included. Now if Raymond has notable endorsers of her views, then by all means, lets mention this too. Do you have sources? Note, however, that these need to be figures specifically defending *Raymond* and her views on transexuality, not simply anti-trans feminism more generally.

Also, I really think that as of my last edit, I've toned down a lot of the most grievously NPOV language. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two reversions

Hullo fellow editor, and we seem to share some interests.

you recently removed additions I had made to the two pages of two articles; The feminist views of pornography/prostitution. I have re-instated them because I am proposing edits to both articles. I have added to both contributions to this effect. Yes, I know Wikipedia is not a discussion forum but I am proposing edits to both articles and I believe I should discus these controversial subjects on the talk page before I do. If this was not clear before then I apologise. I do hope we have understanding now.

Thanks SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 00:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS I may consider joining the Sex Work Task Force as I have acquired some peripheral experience of some of the women involved in this. SmokeyTheCat •TALK•

Happy Endings?

I see you are removing Happy Endings? as spammy. It is referenced by both IMDB and the Providence Journal. I am going to put it back in just for the characters, I don't think there is a reason to remove it when it is referenced for those people.You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that putting in a mention of Happy Endings? in every single article where somebody happens to have made an appearance in that movie is spammy. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Newspaper theft

On July 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Newspaper theft, 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) 00:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

John school

I noticed that back in 2007 or 2008, you tagged John school with a NPOV tag. To be honest, it doesn't seem to be all that POV from my perspective, but you did indicate on the talk page that you would like it to stay until we can take a look at it. Therefore, I thought I'd ask you to take a look at the article and see what you think of it as it is now, and if you still think there are issues, what it might take to get that tag off.

Thanks, Kansan (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution in RI

I know you did some work on Prostitution in Rhode Island in the past. There is a copyrite tag and half of the article has been removed. I was wondering if you would be interested in working on this article again?You Can't Clap With One Hand^(Talk) 19:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giselle (talk • contribs) [reply]

The tag that you removed from this article indicates clearly that it is to be removed only by OTRS agents or administrators. While I don't believe anybody would object to the removal of the tag by anyone if it is obviously misapplied (even though its removal is listed specifically as a type of Wikipedia:Vandalism), in this case, it was not, and your removal restored to publication content plainly copied from copyrighted sources in clear violation of Wikipedia's policies on copyright and non-free content. It is our policy to deal swiftly with improperly used copyrighted content as soon as it is identified. Your action resulted in its renewed publication, against that policy. In the future, please don't presumptively remove these tags, as such removal, especially where blatantly incorrect, may result in sanctions against your account. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(from my talk page) First, you have failed to point out where there was any kind of copyright violation, and I really fail to see where half the article is plagiarized. I removed the tag because it seemed to be blatantly in error. Second, I really don't like your threat of sanctions against my account one little bit, I think your tone was very WP:UNCIVIL, and just straight up out of line. I hope we can settle this like adults and I won't have to bring this into dispute resolution. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not tag the article. I am acting as an uninvolved administrator closing a listing at an administrator's noticeboard. I have cautioned you, as an uninvolved administrator, that removing such tags and restoring copyright violations to publication may result in sanctions to your account. This is simple truth. You are welcome to pursue dispute resolution if you feel that my tone above is incivil. I suspect that others will disagree.

If it will help you, for a single example of the numerous copied sources I validated based on the other user's complaint, compare this text to this source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the edits removing copyrighted material were sound and I have no issue with them. My only remaining issue is that I had removed the tag in good faith, and do not appreciate being threatened in response. I think User:Beland acted errantly when he or she made such a drastic edit without leaving any explanation on the Talk page. The latter is definitely called for, and I've seen more than a few cases where "drive by tagging" of this kind is frowned upon. And for good reason – you can see what a misunderstanding it led to in this case. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you removed the tag in good faith, and my note was not intended to imply otherwise. If I had thought that your actions actually were "Avoidant Vandalism", my note would have been very different. :) If the tag had been spurious, I'd have simply noted the resolution at the CP board and moved on. Since it was not a spurious tag, I needed to point out to you that WP:IARing by removing such tags can lead to trouble when it results in further policy violations. I do not intend to threaten you, but to caution you, to prevent future difficulties.

In terms of User:Beland's actions, no explanation on the talk page is required on placing that template. What he did was within the directions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems--he blanked the relevant portion of the article (although he missed that some copying had taken place above it), with the sources listed in the template (albeit vaguely), and listed the article at WP:CP. He did not notify the contributor personally, which is recommended, but that step can be difficult to do when content is added incrementally, and from the note above it's obvious that the contributor became aware, anyway. The WP:CP process is closer to WP:AfD than it is to a {{notability}} tag or some such. All articles tagged {{copyvio}} are listed for admin review. Perhaps the directions at the template itself need to be clearer as to what other contributors can do if they disagree with the tag. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescent sexuality in the United States

I noticed you have provided some good contributions to the article on Adolescent sexuality in the United States. Recent bold edits (discussed here) have offered an opportunity to improve it, particularly with regard to its incredibly obscene WP:LENGTH and lack of WP:NPOV. I'm hopeful you can return to contribute once again. Thanks. --Meitar (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adolescent sexuality in the United States.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. In addition, reverting the same content multiple times over a period of days is generally grounds for a block..
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NW (Talk) 23:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that I have not made any reversions or even edits for several days now. In any event, since I see that the other parties in this dispute have similarly been warned, I'll keep up my end of it. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be best to give a standard warning to all parties involved. You may be interested to see my replies to Meitar on the subject. NW (Talk) 23:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Shelley Lubben. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cind.amuse 07:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your OPPORTUNITY to either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator...

Hi, I would like to hear what you have to say about Qwyrxian, and here's your chance to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Qwyrxian. Diligent007 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC) CHEERS![reply]

Proposed deletion of Brussels International Festival of Eroticism

The article Brussels International Festival of Eroticism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails the GNG, no indication subject satisfies any SNG. No reliable sourcing, just unsourced, vague claims of significance. GNews/GBooks searches for names in all listed languages plus the award name produce fewer than a half dozen hits, all trivial/spurious, none verifying any of the claims of significance.

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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this to be a non-trivial award event, and is not out of place considering the number of articles on small non-adult film festivals found in Wikipedia already. Note: Category:Film_festivals_in_the_United_States. In any event, I would ask that any deletion go through AfD process rather than Speedy Deletion, and that merger into another article on the larger subject of adult film awards be considered instead. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, speedy deletion wasn't asked for, becuase the article included an assertion of significance, even though it was unsourced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IASHS

I wonder whether my addition to IASHS about its non-accredited status is, in your opinion, sufficient to remove the POV tag you added to it last year. If so, please consider removing the tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yes, I did remove the tags. The text you added goes a bit above and beyond what is necessary for describing IASHS as a non-accredited program, but it deals with the earlier concern that I had in that the original description left the impression IASHS was an accredited educational institution. Which it very much wasn't, considering that NAPNSC was a self-appointed "accrediting association" that never had a membership of more than four small schools and does not seem to exist anymore, in any event. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Hugo Schwyzer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blogger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Zvan

Hi, I hope you don't mind my commenting here.

I've read your comments in Stephanie Zvan's thread

[2]

And found them very interesting and well written, particularly the one discussing Cordelia Fine's work.

Anyway, FWIW, and it ain't worth much, I was commenting there as "Jacques Cuze". In the past 18 hours, I've added three more comments, all are "still in moderation". Stephanie has commented in that interval. My comments were along the nature of prior comments, plus a rebuke of 'Tis himself who wrote "It appears the only people who complain about governments are the ones living under a reasonably competent, effective government." which seems somewhat ludicrous.

But anyway, so apparently I've been banned for well, pretty much nothing. That's par for the course on the Internet, and I do not ask you or expect you to do anything with this information, but *I wanted someone to know*.

Thanks for your interesting comments,

Jacques Cuze [[3]]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.45.56 (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Barnstars for you

		The Porn Star
		For your excellent work on porn and sex related articles I award you the Porn Star Zonafan39 (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Barnstar
		Is there anywhere on the internet where you dont get beat on by other assholes? Zonafan39 (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Galitsin.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Galitsin.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism and sexuality

Hi. Upon reading your suggestion on the Feminist views on BDSM talk page, I went ahead and created an article on Feminist views on sexuality. I thought you might be interested in contributing to it. Have a nice day. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article expansion with sources to hand

Lesbianism in erotica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For what it's worth, there is a whole bunch of academic sources now cited on Drmies' user talk page, of all places. See User talk:Drmies#Sources for starters (but read further along as well for other citations). You are invited to join in the expansion. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farrell

Saw you flagged his article as unbalanced, thanks. It was mostly written by a publicist. Please encourage folks to unskew it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.188.193.134 (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lexicons

Take a look at the dispute on the Sex Work Project talk page, thanks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Ryulong for GamerGate article edit warring

I noticed you saying: "There is a report on you currently for edit warring, which I will definitely add to, because at this point, this is what you are doing."

How does one report users? I'd like to add my vote to this as well, this user has been incredibly blatantly pushing a POV and hypocritically accusing anyone getting in their way of not being neutral. That's absolutely unacceptable behaviour. – Fyrius (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop colluding like this. You were reverted once, and then you should have brought your concerns to the talk page instead of constantly decrying any opposition. Wikipedia has rules and regulations that none of you are following, despite what you think about others' actions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, but I have been an editor here for well over 5 years and understand the rules. (And my account has been quite active over the past year, as if that has anything to do with anything.) I look at what you're doing and see some huge POV pushing and some extremely thin premises, not to mention huge assumptions of bad faith. You don't own the article and you don't get to edit it to your point of view just because your point of view happens to agree with that of mainstream media. *You* need to start following the rules here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about you stop acting like you're a mod? Show me the frickin' rules and regulations that forbid asking a user for help in reporting you, or stay out of this. – Fyrius (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was a mod, iirc, but his sysop privs were removed from what I hear. Before any accusations of harassment come my way for finding that, I just like finding out stuff about controversies. I like controversy, its very tasty. --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 02:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

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

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Polk Award/Remarks on Charlie Hebdo

I added it, then saw your remarks on talk. Sorry if I stepped on your toes. I hadn't seen Volokh. Hope you'll swing by and refine, check what I added. Best.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sex industry researchers and activists has been nominated for discussion

Category:Sex industry researchers and activists, 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. PanchoS (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox academic

Template:Infobox academic has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox scientist. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Iamcuriousblue. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Macrophilia needs Attention

A while back, I've taken up most of the initiative with rewriting the article as User:Eaterjolly/sandbox/Macrophilia. Though a check for abidance of standard wiki conventions may also be necessary, the biggest barrier to article improvement is senior editor consensus on which sources pass WP:Reliability and which don't. If you can spare some attention and minimal priority for an up-and-coming article, please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Source-Sensitive_Topic:_Macrophilia_.7C_Souces_need_independent_audit.

Any input is greatly appreciated! Eaterjolly (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

User:Iamcuriousblue/Template:Female adult bio listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:Iamcuriousblue/Template:Female adult bio. Since you had some involvement with the User:Iamcuriousblue/Template:Female adult bio redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adolfo Arnoldo Majano moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Adolfo Arnoldo Majano, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dream of horses What is this malarky! I created a *stub* about a historical figure, with a well-sourced article in Russian Wikipedia. It belongs in article space as a place-holder to be expanded. I am demanding that you undo what you just did - this abuse of your mod authority, as far as I'm concerned. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that enthused to do as you say with that attitude. I can't read minds nor am I psychic; I couldn't have predicted that you wouldn't abandon the stub after creating it. If it's well-sourced on the Russian Wikipedia, it could've been well-sourced here as well. There's no need at all to have 'placeholder' stubs in the mainspace now a days, with the existence of draftspace and userspace sandboxes. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's an abuse of mod authority, yes, and it's one of the reasons I'm not enthused about WP as a project and contribute considerably less than I did a few years ago. Admins do whatever the fuck they want in an arbitrary manner and I can probably expect sanctions if I'm too vocal about it.

The reason I'm super-irked about this is that it's super-easy to check that this is a historical figure with existing article-space links to the newly-created article, and not just some vanity or other page about a non-notable figure. One minute of checking could have confirmed that. The article was started because someone has to start somewhere. I was hoping someone with Russian knowledge might see the notice and translate at least some of the article from the much longer one in Russian WP. Anyway, I'm sick of this crap. WP is a project that is not worth my time and trouble, because as much as I'm an experienced user with familiarity with Wikipedia's rules, I have no idea whatsoever what some mod is going to take a dislike to and undo on a whim. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox academic

Template:Infobox academic has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox scientist. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for reordering Amy Siskind without introducing undiscussed potentially controversial content. I have no issue with this, although it still would have been the best practice to raise it in the discussion, as I believe CNMall41 had previously questioned whether the criticism reported was actually established as having occurred in that order. That, however, is something that can be worked out between the two of you. BD2412 T 03:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to discuss after the issue has been raised on the talk page is edit warring and exhibits the same "ownership" for which you have accused others of. That's not how Wikipedia works. Next time you wish to make something your preferred version, you will need to discuss as your original change didn't fit your edit summary (being chronological). --CNMall41 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, you may want to see if you can merge contributions from your IP as it shows up in the edit history of the page. Just an FYI. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Masjid As-Saber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Adolfo Arnoldo Majano

Hello, Iamcuriousblue. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Adolfo Arnoldo Majano".

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]