User talk:AerobicFox

This user may have left Wikipedia. AerobicFox has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

25 April 2024
In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS) Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

It is approximately 3:43 AM where this user lives (Pacific Time). [refresh]

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

I try to keep talkpage discussions centralized, so if you start a discussion here I will respond here, and if I start a conversation on your page then I will have it watchlisted and will respond there.

Bienvenidos a mi página de discusión. Se puede hablar conmigo en español si se necesita ó si se prefiere.

I saw this comment from you after the recent Off2riorob discussion closed. I'm disappointed in Rob for making his misleading attack on me, and I'm saddened that other editors are taking it at face value. I also note that you misremembered Rob's comment in order to even further reduce the number of edits that I had made. Rob's use of cherry-picked edit counts to attempt to squelch participation by editors with whom he disagrees is distasteful, counterproductive, and corrosive to the collegial atmosphere we're trying to foster here. If he can't discuss a point of policy on its merits, then he shouldn't fall back to attacking editors.

The only way that Rob could make me look like a non-contributor was to filter out all of my other Wikipedia contributions. To refresh your memory, here's the original attack. He argues that because I've made relatively few mainspace edits in recent months, I'm somehow out of touch with the community, and that I shouldn't be allowed to block the implicitly more important editors who have racked up more mainspace edits. He didn't even have the class to offer his insult where I could respond to it, as he slipped his post into an already-closed discussion.

So, why did he choose the six-month cutoff? Because otherwise he'd have to acknowledge that I've been contributing to the project for seven years, with more than sixteen thousand edits behind me—including more than 4400 to article space. Why did he just look at article contributions? Because otherwise he'd have to acknowledge that in the preceding six months I had made roughly four hundred edits, not just thirty. A major part of my contributions of late have been to the Wikipedia Reference Desks. While edits to the Ref Desk don't represent direct changes to the encyclopedia, they help the project in a number of ways.

• By far the Ref Desk's largest and most consistent source for the answers we give is Wikipedia itself; the Ref Desk serves the valuable purpose of helping readers – new and highly experienced – to use Wikipedia. (Wikipedia is a noble and wonderful and incredible project, but no encyclopedia is worth anything if it sits on the shelf, if real people can't extract useful information from it.)
• By the same token, the Ref Desk also serves to identify deficiencies in our coverage. When someone asks a question that we can't answer by reference to Wikipedia itself, it often leads to research and expansion of our articles.
• The Ref Desk is a recruiting tool for Wikipedia. People find there way to the Ref Desk (either through the link at Wikipedia:Contact us, through other web sites, or through an internet search) and discover a community full of helpful people who can connect them with useful information. Some of those people will join the project, adding their expertise and enthusiasm.
• Even neglecting the other more direct benefits of the Ref Desk, it's probably worth doing as a public relations move. It doesn't cost very much, and it builds goodwill.

I think it's worth mentioning that the conduct for which Bugs was blocked occurred at the Reference Desk, and it seems particularly unfair that Rob felt it appropriate to gloss over my specific experience (administrative and editorial) in that part of Wikipedia.

Beyond my work at the Reference Desk, I regularly participate in discussions (both on article talk pages and on policy pages) that guide and determine how Wikipedia is built. To take one recent example, just a single day before Rob's jab at me, I had been involved in a conversation on Jimbo's talk page on how to balance our goals as a project with requests from biography subjects to suppress information in their articles. My input (and subsequent comments) required substantial thought and research. While I am reluctant to resort to argumentum ad Jimbonem, I think that Jimbo's statement that "... TenOfAllTrades has produced a classic, thoughtful, and elegant discussion of the issue." supports at least a basic claim to competence and understanding of the purposes of the project.

I was willing to let sleeping dogs lie, and had intended not to participate in the recent AN/I thread. I chose to comment here on your talk page because until now I didn't realize that there were other editors taking Rob's attacks seriously, and using those misleading statements as a basis for their opinions of other editors. I'm even more concerned that you were willing to repeat and even further misstate Rob's deceptive claims. I hope that you'll do more research before you condemn another editor in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you have taken any offense, and hope you do not feel that I disregard your contributions. In the case of the recent AN/I I was restating Rob's comment for which another editor alluded to, and was in no way attempting to smear or besmirch your edit history, but rather was bringing up my own (admittedly somewhat vague) recollection of a comment I remember Rob posting. I wish to clarify that my repetition of Rob's comment towards you was not my attempting to weigh in on the merits of his critique of your contributions, but was to bring up an example of Rob's comments, and I hope you do not see this as any condemnation towards you.AerobicFox (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello AerobicFox! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I noticed that you placed Shigeru Miyamoto is up for GAR and its been placed there for two weeks while you said you were gonna close it 7 days ago. So I'm just letting you know about the review in case you forgot about it. GamerPro64 18:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you, that somehow did just escape my mind.AerobicFox (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AerobicFox - a belated note of thanks for your encouraging comment on my talkpage at a time when I was in need of such - I am grateful - best wishes to you. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belated but welcomed. ^_^ Glad to see your doing well, best wished to you too.AerobicFox (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain your decision to revert the 17:12, 8 November 2011 edit on H.A.A.R.P. page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.37.203.204 (talk)

For one thing, the link isn't working, and even going to his homepage on directly clicking on this hyperlink: High-power ELF radiation generated by modulated HF heating of the ionosphere can cause Earthquakes, Cyclones and localized heating doesn't bring me somewhere where I can confirm what he is even arguing. More importantly though, this source is self-published and Fran De Aquino is a non-notable loon who says he can control gravity using electromagnetic fields, believes he has quantified gravity, and has to my knowledge never been published outside of a non-fringe, unaccredited journal such as "The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology", or his other publications some of which are vanity publications that you pay them money and they will print anything.AerobicFox (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both link and hyperlink work fine to me, on each and every browser and OS I tried; it's a 732 KB pdf file. Try here. His questionable credibility, or the fact that he's self-published, is the reason why I included the information on the Conspiracy theories section, and should not be a motive to overlook his influence on conspiracy theorists. Nick Begich is an equally self-published non-notable loon who says weird things, nevertheless he got a citation on the section. My intention was to report the existence of this essay, since I've recently noticed an outburst of speculations based on it, and not because of its reliability. 93.37.209.105 (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, apologies for the terse/sarcastic edit summary. I'll take your word for it that it is being mentioned and cited a lot by speculators, but we should find a reliable source stating as much instead of just citing the essay itself.AerobicFox (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have read your comment about civility related to the Pregnancy image issue at ANI. It summed up much of what I was thinking and repeated below. I've been getting the impression that "civility" based requests for blocks and bans have been increasing, which I think is a dangerous trend, and not part of traditional policy. There's a lot of people grabbing onto an adjective and running with it as evidence of incivility. If I read your comment right, I think you agree with me that that is an unhelpful trend. Either way, I hope what you wrote is noticed by others because it sums up the issue nicely. Shadowjams (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree in the utmost. I read your comment down below and it basically reaffirmed what I am feeling as well.AerobicFox (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Medic Barnstar
		To AerobicFox, for contributions to medical articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it, thanks this really helps my motivation. :)AerobicFox (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AerobicFox,

You stated at the RSN that "The specific application of the theory to indicate that infanitilism is pedophilia turned inward is directly contradicted by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems which consider the two conditions to be unrelated." I've read the DSM's discussion of the paraphilias (DSM-IV-TR, pages 568-73 are the specific ranges I have photocopies of) and browsed the ICD-10's latest version in section F65, disorders of sexual preference ([1]). In neither case can I find paraphilic infantilism mentioned. The DSM mentions infantilism once on page 572 as a behaviour seen in sexual masochists ([2], the actual quote is "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ("infantilism")"). The ICD-10 doesn't seem to discuss paraphilic infantilism at all (but does discuss infantilism a lot, in reference to the meaning of "phyisiological infantilism", the failure to mature or appearance of physically infantile traits in adults). As indicated in the paraphilic infantilism page, pedophilia and PI are not considered the same thing, and I have attempted to edit to make this distinction more clear [3], as well as rewording the "autoerotic pedophilia" to remove the loaded term while keeping the intent [4]. I believe it is important to make a distinction between attraction to children (pedophilia) and attraction to the idea of being a child (paraphilic infantilism) and if the distinction is not clear enough, it should be sharpened. Paraphilic infantilists initiate sexual contact with other adults, not children. I think that Blanchard, Freund, Cantor and Barbaree make these distinctions, and in fact make them quite clearly, touching on the central issue of a parter versus the self. I have compared it to the difference between a homosexual (attracted to a member of the same sex) and transvestic fetishism (attracted to the idea of being the opposite sex).

My basic questions are - what parts of the DSM and ICD-10 do you see as applying to or discussing paraphilic infantilism? Where do they make the distinction that pedophilia is not paraphilic infantilism? I don't see the DSM or ICD-10 as contradicting Blanchard's theory simply because the DSM and ICD-10 don't discuss paraphilic infantilism at all, let alone making a distinction or contradicting the theory. If I am missing something, I would like to correct it, and having my mistakes pointed out makes me a better editor and the page improves. I had considered the DSM-PI issue settled and would only like to re-consider it if myself and the other editors involved made an error or missed a point.

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I assumed that infantilism would be listed under miscellaneous sexual paraphilias, and did not expect to see it not mentioned at all. The distinction is still present in the bulk of sources on the pedophilia and infantilism which neither relate the two, nor treat them as similar diagnoses, but as two different pathologies entirely with their own developing diagnoses and understanding and their own associations. In this way, despite the lack of distinction by the DSM/ICD which disappointingly does not discuss the paraphilia, I still find the mainstream consensus to be against any type of relationship between the two.AerobicFox (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphilic infantilism is pretty rare, and there is minimal research. Plus, diagnosis with the DSM requires clinically significant distress (or in the case of illegal acts, actually raping someone). Further, since it doesn't appear to cause distress and is not criminalized, there's not much reason for it to be a research priority - these points are even part of the article, in the research section.

I completely agree that pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism are totally different; I don't recall who wrote the current section, but I wholeheartedly support the distinction found in Paraphilic infantilism#Pedophilia (and edited to remove the loaded word recently, something I had discussed in September). I think Freund and Blanchard's 1993 paper actually helps clarify this distinction on page 561-2 where they theorize that though the two groups may have an apparently similar fantasy, but there are actually distinct difference in origins and focus. Here is the relevant quote; note that their definition of "masochistic gynaephiles" is "[men] who habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies in sexual fantasies involving adult women". This is pretty much the definition of at least the masochistic type of paraphilic infantilist and in Cantor et al. 2008 they make the link explicit.

I have never, ever edited the page towards the idea that pedophiles and infantilists are the same; I have added sources explicitly contrary to this point [5], [6] and at no point have ever edited the page towards the idea that the two are similar. I have been intimately involved in the editing of the page for several months now, and followed each revision and change quite closely; at no point have I ever attempted to link the two.

My apologies if I appear rather defensive here, but Bittergrey has been accusing me of bias and misrepresenting my edits for many months now. The only way I see this page getting resolved is if someone is willing to dig into the sources and check the actual diffs. If you are willing to look into the substance and help build a consensus I would be extremely happy - doesn't matter if you think I'm wrong and Bittergrey is right so long as a consensus emerges. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can work with that, and apologies if I have insinuated some sort of bias on your part. I dislike the whole pedophilia section, but I don't have access to some of the sources(particularly the books) so I can't tell how accurately represented they are. I will try coming to the talkpage of the article however to discuss it.AerobicFox (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I will be the first to admit I have become more than a little paranoid about accusations or implications of bias on my part. Really, all I want is to write a good article based on reliable sources. I'm very happy to be corrected if I'm reading a source incorrectly, but many of the issues on the talk page are less about interpretation and more about wikipedia policies. The DSM however, is very much a question of interpretation; it was discussed previously at the RSN here. I have photocopies of the relevant pages but today at least I can also see them on the google books preview. Based on my reading I believe it has essentially zero relevance to the page beyond a single sentence.

I have copies of many, if not all of the sources discussed on the page. Any articles I am missing I can probably get PDF copies of. I'm happy to e-mail any of them to you if you'd like to look at them. I also have a PDF scan of Cantor et al. 2008 if you can't read it on the google books preview. If you are having trouble getting access to the google books pages, I think you need a google (i.e. gmail, picassa, google books) account otherwise the "pool" of pages you can preview is shared among anyone with your IP address. I have a gmail account I specifically use for wikipedia correspondence, which makes it much easier to see google books previews and request sources from editors who have access to good libraries. I recommend it, it's very useful.

The main points of disagreement revolve around the Blanchard sources, as well as Dickey apparently. I have copies of all of them. If you would prefer not to use e-mail there may be ways to use the resource exchange to access them.

As for the pedophilia section, there are no sources that support paraphilic infantilists being pedophiles and several that distinguish the two. Now that the phrase "autoerotic pedophilia" has been swapped for an equivalent but less loaded term, I'm hoping the current version is more acceptable. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who started the section on how infantilism is not pedophilia[7], I'll concede that it can be improved. To this end, I have provided sources. For example, WLU should have mentioned that Brame, the source he claims credit for above, wasn't found by him, but by me[8][9]. I'm also the one who told him the Dr. Brame was not a 'he.'[10]. I feel that the infantilism article should present the mainstream view that infantilism is not related to pedophilia.

However, in three places, a fringe view is being presented. This fringe view ambiguously associates infantilism and pedophilia. "They [Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." (Cantor, Blanchard, et al, 2008/2009). Per this text in this source, infantilism is not a form of masochism, not an unspecified paraphilia, but a form of pedophilia. Using this source to support some differing point would be to misrepresent it.

As for Freund and Blanchard, the first sentence reads: "A clinical series of male paedophiles who dressed or fantasised themselves as children suggests that certain paraphilias represent developmental errors in locating erotic targets in the environment and that proneness to such errors is a paraphilic dimension in its own right, apart from the specific nature of the erotic target." The article never uses the term 'infantilism,' leaving us to guess that it what they meant by "masochistic gynaephilies." Since this is the closest thing in that article to the definition in the DSM (under masochism) this isn't an unreasonable guess, but still a guess. This guess would be an example of WP:SYNTH.

For completeness, I'll cover Dickey too. This was a response to a response to Pate's "Adult Baby Syndrome". Pate's patient didn't have the distress or impairment needed for a diagnosis of paraphilia. Dickey presents "autohebepedophilic dysphoria", "autoinfantophilia", and "autopedophilia." These all have pedophilia or infantophilia (pedophilic desire for infants) in the neologisms. He mentions Blanchard's 1989 autogynephilia paper, but not F&B's erotic target errors paper. There is no source connecting any of the neologisms to paraphilic infantilism, and this source is not connected to the above two, except by the workplace of their authors.

Rewording the article text based on these sources to not be offensive is not a viable option. Text must represent the sources if sources are cited. However, it isn't given that we have to cite these - in fact, since they are all from the same facility, we should not. I really don't care whether we count this as one or three fringe theories, they are fringe and without independent sources. They should go, and there is only one editor currently warring to keep them - WLU. BitterGrey (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting it. It's fixed now. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask you for your thoughts on WLU's recent change of heart (above)? Previously, he had edit warred for months to keep "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia" and to cite Blanchard & Blanchard to support it([11][12][13][14][15][16]...). Coming around 180 degrees, he now accuses me of misrepresenting the sources[17] by representing them the same way he has done so many times before. (Except that I never represented them as non-fringe.)

Please note that the pedophilia section text regarding Fruend and Blanchard, which WLU emphasizes so heavily Dec 7th above, was commented out of the article until Dec 6th[18] because it contradicts CB&B's reading of F&B.BitterGrey (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've been trying to get some feedback on a proposed article expansion I've prepared about a non-profit with which I have a potential COI, so far without luck. I've just posted a note to WikiProject Organizations' Talk page, which I recognize is semi-active at best. If you'd be interested in looking at it and sharing your thoughts about whether it's ready to go live, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks really good. I went ahead and moved it to the new location Summit Series (conference). Best wishes.AerobicFox (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I just noticed you had taken care of it. Very much appreciated! If I can be of assistance to you at some point, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do you play pro Smash? I'm going to be at a pretty big tournament next month.--SexyKick 05:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever gotten to play a few pro players in smash, where I live there's no pro scene in anything :( Good luck in your tournament.AerobicFox (talk) 07:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! I'm writing partially on behalf of another editor that's trying to add a page for their organization. They're sort of on the cusp of really passing notability guidelines and I was hoping that as a member of the wiki-project for organizations, that you might have places you could look for reliable sources that I might have missed. The user is User talk:Caribbeanchild and the organization is called "Children of the Caribbean Foundation". I've found a few articles about various celebrities that have endorsed the project, but haven't been able to find that one big news article that would really push it into the notability sphere. Any chance you might be able to help any?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Hey, sorry for the late response I've been on holiday break. I have already gone ahead and check some of the usual places for charities to be listed, but I haven't found any mention of them at charitynavigator, charitywatch, Better business Bureau. I've also checked out some more obscure locations + google news/books, but I haven't found anything promising. Their endorsments page appears to have some celebrity actors supporting them which may be covered in another source. I'll try see if I can find some reference to them in some other places.AerobicFox (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Plant stem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roses (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) 11:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you've redirected the page more appropriately, should we just go ahead and close the AFD I opened? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize you had already opened an AfD, apologies. Unless you have any objections I would go ahead and close the AfD, I think the redirect is an appropriate solution.AerobicFox (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already got to it. Speedied A10. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I quoted you at AN/3RR. BitterGrey (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K, thanks for letting me know. ^_^ AerobicFox (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AerobicFox. You have new messages at Arjun G. Menon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked_--_can_we_bring_this_to_closure.3F

The "one link" rule/enforcement has gotten out of hand, I'm trying to get something closer to rationality. You seem to be one of the people with a "middle ground" view, and I'd appreciate any refinements to the proposal. If the draft replacement language at the top of the section is something you'd support, I'd appreciate that too. Thanks Boundlessly (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have renewed the proposal to move Minesweeper (ship) to Minesweeper, due to hundreds of links to Minesweeper referring to the ship. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Starcube and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#Starcube until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Little indication of notability. Orphaned for a decade.

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. PepperBeast (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]