User talk:Rchilde

Welcome to Wikipedia, Rchilde. If you have any questions you can ask them at village pump or you can ask my on my talk page. The following pages were of use to me when I first joined wikipedia and I hope that they will be of use to you if you haven't already located them;

Again, welcome fellow wikipedian!

-JCarriker 10:13, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:27, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Image copyright problem with Image:OKC_Lightning_logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:OKC_Lightning_logo.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 21:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Vancouver_Chinatown_Gate.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vancouver_Chinatown_Gate.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of neighborhoods in Oklahoma City

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article List of neighborhoods in Oklahoma City, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. --B e n^talk 09:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry (a newcomer doing template work is a little unheard of but still much appreciated) - template removed. In future, leave a note on the talk page as to the purpose of orphan pages or those likely to be prodded. --B e n^talk 09:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in User talk:Bennyboyz3000, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --B e n^talk 09:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of NorthPark Mall (Oklahoma)

NorthPark Mall (Oklahoma), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that NorthPark Mall (Oklahoma) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NorthPark Mall (Oklahoma) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of NorthPark Mall (Oklahoma) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Oklahoma Newsletter October 07

The WikiOkie Reporter

WikiProject Oklahoma's Newsletter
Issue 2 - October 2007

Edit this newsletter
Discuss this newsletter

Your second or third stop for WikiProject Oklahoma News

Modest boost in assessed articles during September

WikiProject Oklahoma's massive list of unassessed articles got smaller over the month of September, as 45 articles were assessed by bots and editors. Assessments made on August 31 bring the total to 62 assessed articles over the 31-day period. On September 15, BetacommandBot assessed 40 articles from no-class to stub and start class. This bot automatically updates the talk pages of articles included in more than one WikiProject if at least one WikiProject has already assessed the material, bringing each interested WikiProject's ratings into compliance with the assessment. No B-class or higher quality assessments were given out over September, and only a small handful of importance assessments were granted. On August 31, one Low, Mid, and High importance rating was given to three separate articles. Leroy McGuirk was given the lone high-importance rating.

Oklahoma categories receive help from Texan

TexasAndroid, an administrator, assisted WikiProject Oklahoma by categorizing nearly 100 Oklahoma-related pages on September 24. The additions were made mainly to Tulsa-related pages. "I've done the major cities in Texas in the past, and was thinking about what to do next, and decided to stay relatively close to home for now. Thus OK's big cities got done," TexasAndroid wrote on his user page.

Shortcut

WP:TULSA

Meet WikiProject Oklahoma's "sub-project"

Taskforce Tulsa, a collaboration of editors operating under WikiProject Oklahoma, has been created to increase the scope of Wikipedia's coverage of Tulsa and its surrounding areas. Taskforce Tulsa is many things, but most importantly, it is a way for editors to have a place to put Tulsa-related requests (pictures, article, expansion, collaboration) for other editors interested in Tulsa. News, guidelines, and category trees related to Tulsa articles can easily be accessed and added through the task force's project page. The taskforce is not its own WikiProject. Instead, it works in conjunction with WikiProject Oklahoma to increase the quality and scope of Tulsa-related material. Because of the increased clutter and unnecessary waste of space that would be created with a new WikiProject, editors have opted for a taskforce, or workgroup project. Rather than having a Wikiproject Oklahoma banner as well as a Wikiproject Tulsa banner on most Tulsa-related pages, editors can simply add the Tulsa Taskforce note onto the existing Wikiproject Oklahoma banner. Cleaner, clearer, and more efficient. In edit mode, such a banner would appear as this: "{{WikiProject Oklahoma|class=FA|importance=Top|tulsa-task-force=yes}}". In other words, simply adding "tulsa-task-force=yes}}" to the existing Wikiproject Oklahoma banner on an article's talk page would include that article into the Tulsa Task Force. According to an explanation on the taskforce's project page, "The Tulsa Task Force is a 'sub-wikiproject' operating 'beneath' Wikiproject Oklahoma, and is designed to assist it by focusing specifically on Tulsa-related material. Editors who are interested in expanding knowledge of Tulsa on Wikipedia may wish to consider themselves part of Taskforce Tulsa as well as Wikiproject Oklahoma." Interested parties can sign up much like a stand-alone WikiProject.

This month's task: Get out of your routine. Make some edits! • Edit next month's newsletter

The WikiProject Oklahoma newsletter is a work in progress so please share your ideas about how the newsletter can be improved.
If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the sign-up list.

This newsletter was delivered to you by Okiefromokla. This is a one-time delivery as to all Wikiproject Oklahoma members to boost interest in the newsletter. In the future, if you would like to receive this newsletter in your talk page, please insert your name in the sign-up list. Thanks!

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:OKC Lightning logo.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:OKC Lightning logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard News Online

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hard News Online, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Pastordavid (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 100 Park Avenue Building

The article 100 Park Avenue Building has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

essentially empty article. Not clear how a 12 floor building meets notability guidelines.

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. RadioFan (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rchilde (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)with all due respect, 100 Park Avenue Building is notable and significant because it was once the tallest original skyscraper in Oklahoma City. If other cities can have their buildings listed, why can't Oklahoma City? Please remove the 'proposed deletion' for this building. Also, I strongly suggest that you perhaps read through the posts before automatically suggesting deletion if you want to be editor and desire Wikipedia to have a wealth of content and information.[reply]

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Dowell Center, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. PDCook (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are no references that indicate the notability of this building. What makes it notable? Regards, PDCook (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of 100 Park Avenue Building

I have nominated 100 Park Avenue Building, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Park Avenue Building. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RadioFan (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPROJECT OKLAHOMA

This has been sent to you requesting that you respond to whether your not you are an active member of WP:OK Please respond Here. By following the instructions there.

--Steam Iron 22:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 360 at Founders Plaza

The article 360 at Founders Plaza has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable. Nothing in 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. Safiel (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to Support WikiProject Oklahoma and Tulsa

This has been sent to you requesting that you share your thoughts to an ongoing discussion that's taking place on the projects talk page.

--Kumioko (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Oklahoma

This has been sent to you requesting that you respond to whether or not you are still an active member of WikiProject Oklahoma Please respond Here By following the instructions.

--Dcheagle 09:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Oklahoma City companies

Template:Oklahoma City companies has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:17, 3 January 2014 (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) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rchilde. 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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rchilde. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rchilde. 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]

Proposed deletion of List of neighborhoods in Oklahoma City

The article List of neighborhoods in Oklahoma City has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is already a full article on this topic

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. Greggens (talk) 23:31, 11 April 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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that it has been compromised. If your account is locked, please contact ca

wikimedia.org. Otherwise, if you are able to confirm that you are the user who created this account, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section), then add this below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}}.Primefac (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

i am not compromised. Why are you blocking me just because I point out a biased contribution? I have contributed to Wikipedia financially as well as through content and have received constructive criticism particularly when my opinion or bias was presented. I read an article by Primefac and noted bias against the president, pointed it out and even made a recommendation without the biased clauses and now I'm blocked permanently with you stating im compromised?

Not sure where wikipedia is headed but I suspect you may need to rewrite many of those content once the truth comes out. I had hoped that wikipedia would be an unbiased source of fact (which was told to me when I submitted content) only now to discover in 2020 that is not the case. If you continue to block me I will no longer contribute financially to your cause. Please reconsider and view my commentary as constructive, and I hope that you will remove the bias. that's all. Rchilde (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:20, 14 December 2020 (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.

I have reviewed this block, and I understand why Primefac thought that this account might be compromised. The message left for Primefac on his talk page showed many signs of being completely out of character based on this account's prior edits. Some examples:

16-year-old account with no significant history of editing in politically charged areas suddenly takes interest in a highly political topic
Long-term account that proposes edits on a user talk page instead of the article talk page
First edit in over a year is to a politically charged topic, in particular one that is directly related to disinformation both on and off Wikipedia
Only rarely has this account edited articles/topics that are currently "in the news"

To clarify, you're blocked for an indefinite period; it is not necessarily a permanent block. It is quite possible that your account can be unblocked. While your history of financial contribution, as well as content contribution, is no doubt appreciated, that is not usually a deciding factor in addressing very unusual account behaviour. It should be noted that many editors and administrators have been very busily working against vandalism, poor editing and disinformation in relation to topics associated with the recent US election, and so many of us are particularly alert to any unusual account behaviour in this topic area.

It would be helpful if you could try to address some of the issues I have pointed out here, in particular why you posted on Primefac's page instead of the article talk page, and why you had this sudden interest in this particular area. Risker (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on; they are not usually involved in day to day operations. Us editors have nothing to do with collecting or using donations- and donating or withholding donations does not influence Wikipedia content, because if it did, this would cease to be a neutral encyclopedia. It is your decision whether you are able to donate or not. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and makes no claims as to whether something is true or not; only the reader can determine what they believe for themselves. If you disagree with what reliable sources say about a topic, you will need to take that up with them. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, as everything and everyone has biases; we present the sources so readers can evaluate them and judge them for themselves for bias and determine what they believe. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my reasons for blocking are the same as those identified by Risker; suddenly "becoming political" out of the blue is one of the flags we look for in compromised accounts, especially these days with all of the related drama in the USA. So far my opinions and concerns have not been changed or assuaged (respectively) but I will leave this unblock request for another admin to decide. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Continental Oil Center

The article Continental Oil Center has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not satisfy WP:NBUILDING. Been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years.

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. – DarkGlow • 19:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Regency Tower for deletion

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

– DarkGlow • 19:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of SandRidge Center for deletion

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

Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]