Karmaclub

Welcome

Hello, Karmaclub, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Formatting and full citations

One of the things that helps being a good Wikipedia contributor and not subjecting the article to WP:LINKROT is presenting a full citation for claims. If you have further questions after reading the introduction guide, please feel free to ask for help! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Off to the races!

	A Great Start
	You are off to a great start! Thanks for your contributions! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Monarch butterfly, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

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) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Malcolm Butler (American football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sammy Watkins. 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) 11:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sports transactions

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. Your recent edit to the page Wei-Yin Chen appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Martin St. Louis page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Links and spam

I would like to ask that you not post any more links to Genius. There are multiple reasons for this.

The first is that you appear to be an employee of the site in some form or fashion and inserting these links can be seen as spam.

The second is that you're trying to use these as a reliable source to establish various facts, however the problem is that anyone can annotate Genius. This means that there's little to no editorial oversight and what little there might be isn't enough to satisfy WP:RS guidelines. For example, you added a link here to back up claims that John Lennon was inspired by Lewis Carrol. While obviously he was, Genius is not the best source to back this up.

I'm going to open up a discussion at WP:RS/N to see if Genius can be used as a source of any type or even as a link in the external links section. Until a decision has been made, do not post any more links on Wikipedia. If the decision is that it cannot be used as a source, do not add any more links on Wikipedia. If the decision is that it could be used in specific circumstances, then I'd recommend that you ask at WP:RS/N before posting it anywhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

We're not posting any new links to Genius.com. We're correcting bad links to outdated URL's (changing RapGenius.com to Genius.com). That is 100% of the scope of the project. Karmaclub (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The links to genius.com and rapgenius.com will be deleted from wikipedia. Please do not add any more of them. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I haven't added any links to genius.com. I also do not agree with how you see the situation. Please offer evidence to support your statement...I believe that I am in the right and that I can continue with my work as a rule-abiding Wikipedian, though I'm willing to let you try convince me otherwise. I also would like to know how you plan to automatically scrub hundreds of links from Wikipedia and block new ones from being added. Hundreds of individual contributors independently decided that the links were worthy of inclusion...Genius.com had nothing to do with their being posted. Karmaclub (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:COI. Since you are affiliated with genius.com, whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant. I cannot scrub automatically hundreds of links; we will have to do it manually, wasting our time otherwise spent on writing wikipedia articles. Therefore we hate spam mightily. In addition to being a wikipedia spammer, genius.com stores lyrics without any indication of authors' permission. This is a violation of the law, and we cannot allow copyright violators to be cited in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I am 100% compliant with WP:COI. I hate spam...and I also hate broken links. If this issue was important to you, you would have taken it on a long time ago. Furthermore, I disagree with your interpretation of the law and copyright violation. You are entitled to your opinion and I can respect you for having it but I'm not bound by your feelings. Karmaclub (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please also note the following: Rap Genius Website Agrees to License With Music Publishers Karmaclub (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Accepted. Unfortunately this important information is not prominent enough on their webpages. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. Karmaclub (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if you were talking about me or Lem, but something to take into consideration is that there are many, MANY articles and edits that are problematic and very few editors that will actively do something about them. Now as far as COI goes, you need to be extremely, extremely careful. The reason I'm repeating that word is that to be quite frank, COI editors are frequently the subject of ire on Wikipedia and there's a sizable portion of editors that believe that they shouldn't be editing at all. I'm not one of them, mind you, and I've actually got a COI with the Library of Virginia and had a minor run in with an editor that put a ton of tags on one of my articles. (I think it was one about a former slaved turned politician on the national level, which made them pass GNG on that alone.) The reason I'm mentioning this is that it seemed like one of the main reasons my article got tagged was because of the COI, as I'd never had anything else get tagged with that amount of tags under my main account. Luckily for me another editor defended the article before I even knew anything happened and none of this ever got nasty at all, but it still happened.

Basically what I'm trying to say here is that Wikipedia can be very harsh to COI editors and as such, you need to be extremely cautious about any and all edits you make in this area. When making edits and articles on Wikipedia under my LVA account, I've frequently gone to various forums to ask for help and reassurance that everything is kosher, since I know that any misstep would be scrutinized extremely heavily because there is an extremely negative perception of COI editing of any type on Wikipedia. My point here is that you saying that you're just fixing links isn't a good enough rationale here. You need to make sure that the source can actually back up the rationales in the article. Since the site does use lyrics from the musicians, that's something that could make it usable to back up specific lyrics, however it would then only be usable when the claim is something like "This is mentioned in the song "Song Title" by Sam Smith" and it's very blatant that this is the case. The key here is that not all lyrics are blatant about this and it could be disputed. It's usually far safer to link to an article that discusses the lyrics in question, since otherwise people could contest it as WP:OR - and it's entirely possible that this could happen.

Now where you really need to be careful is when you're replacing/fixing links where the source refers to some of the crowdsourced claims. Crowdsourced content of that nature is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia and the expectation is that if you're fixing a source, you should also be checking to make sure that it's actually supposed to be used in that context. Would an average editor be under that much scrutiny without a COI? Maybe not, but you do have a COI and as such there are more expectations of you. The average Joe coming in should be replacing the link with a better source as well, but with a COI editor there's always going to be a question of whether or not they left it there because they didn't know any better (ie, that they are expected to fix it) or if they left it there because they want people to go to that website, thus ensuring that the editor in question continues to get paid... and thanks to people like WikiPR, the first inclination is going to be that a COI editor is going for the payola. Bottom line is that COI editors don't get a lot of second chances and you need to be extremely careful because people have gotten blocked for less. Heck, people have actually lost jobs with Wikipedia for just being paid editors and Jimbo himself openly states that he doesn't think COI or paid editors should directly edit an article. With that sort of thought process here you need to really, really be extremely careful. I can't stress that enough and I'd like to ask that at the very least, if the lyrics cites are deemed to be OK, that you only use those - and that you replace any of the other sources with a better source or remove it and add the citation needed tag. It won't be easy to tell your bosses that you have to do this (I had to say no to my supervisor at the LVA when it came to some articles and it wasn't fun), but this will help keep the "no paid/COI editors" people at bay. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United Cab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uber. 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) 10:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and a couple of tips

Thanks for your edits to Dune Shacks of Peaked Hill Bars Historic District. After reviewing them, I thought I'd share a couple helpful tips:

1. You'll see that I undid your addition of Category:Historic districts in the United States, because categories in Wikipedia are very hierarchical. Since the page was already a member of Category:Historic districts in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, it is automatically categorized into that higher-level category. Help:Categories explains this better than I, but when faced with a choice of categories, it's always preferred to select the most granular (lowest-level) category that fits.
2. This is a minor "nit", but it's a time-saving one: when wikilinks are "pluralized" (e.g. [[dune]]s), you need not change them to piped links (e.g. [[dune|dunes]]). The Wiki engine automatically formats these two examples identically. So, between these two coding "styles", the Manual of Style (at MOS:PIPE) indicates a (slight) preference of "pluralized" over "piped". To reiterate, this is a minor point, so please ignore the urge to "hunt down" and undo any similar edits you may have made elsewhere.

Thanks again! —grolltech^(talk) 14:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ben & Jerry's may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and [[bullying]] problems (the company has noted that the name was based on the world ''[hazelnut]]'' and a play on the phrase "dazed and confused", which is both a [[Dazed_and_Confused_(song)|song]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In one of your recent edits, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking.

Also, convention is not to use underscores for spaces in links. I think this might be because it requires an internal alias to link to the article names with spaces. Thank you. —EncMstr (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm EncMstr. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Nersornaat. Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please, only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Palmyra, Missouri may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Confederate]] prisoners were killed in retaliation for the disappearance of a local [[Union (American Civil War|Union]] man.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Untamed Heart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Music score. 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) 10:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi. I see that you're adding a lot of wikilinks. That's often a good thing, but it can also verge into what we call overlinking when done indiscriminately. For example, linking common words that everybody understands is unnecessary. It dilutes the value of links and can cause readers to become overwhelmed with the number of available links. It's best to link only to the most relevant articles. For example, for an American film, the lead might say, "The Terminator is a 1984 science fiction thriller film directed by James Cameron". We would not link the year or country of origin. Linking both of those are discouraged, and neither is especially important to the film. Thriller might get linked, depending on editor judgment; most editors do like to link genres. James Cameron would certainly be required to be linked, since his involvement is critical to the film, and readers will probably want to know more about him. Knowing what to link and what not to link can tricky, and much of it depends on one's own judgment; however, we do offer some guidance in Wikipedia's manual of style. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ModCloth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IRL. 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) 09:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

POV tagging on Solo diving

Hi Karmaclub, You recently tagged a section in Solo diving with {{POV section}}. As you did not provide the normally expected explanation on the talk page, and placed the tag in an unconventional position at the end of a section, it is not clear which section you are criticising, or what exactly you consider to be biased. Both sections are single short paragraphs, and both are referenced, so it is unclear what you expect will be done about it. Please clarify the situation, or I will remove the tag as not actionable due to insufficient information. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 53W53, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Condominiums. 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) 09:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Karmaclub. 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)

Reference errors on 12 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Throw Rag page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Dave Gray (Author). I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dave Gray (Author)

The article Dave Gray (Author) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable author lacking non-trivial support. References are for the most part brief mentions, quotes, or WP:PRIMARY in nature. Editor that created article has disclosed they are associated "employer, client, and[/or other] affiliation" on article talk page. Page is more of a vanity/advertisement page than an encyclopedic article.

While all constructive 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. reddogsix (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Talk:Dave Gray (Author) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Talk:Dave Gray (Author) 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/Talk:Dave Gray (Author) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. reddogsix (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Dave Gray (Author) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dave Gray (Author) 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/Dave Gray (Author) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. reddogsix (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Zendesk page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karmaclub, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

reddogsix (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

We work for a 200 person company. Of course, we have more than 1 Wikipedia Account...we have 2 different accounts controlled by 2 different users under the same IP address. That's not being a sockpuppet. Each of these users utilize Wikipedia independently of each other and we've never colluded in any way that violates Wikipedia Standards. We were shown not to be sockpuppets on the voiting for the page deletion in question. We absolutely pledge in the future for both users to work independently of each other. Please unblock this account and Barbequeue

Decline reason:

See, the problem is that you didn't act independently. That's what lead to the sockpuppet investigation in the first place. And then the technical evidence ties you more closely than you admit here. Why are two independent users sharing the same computer? Yamla (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Continued from above. Two users did not use the same computer. Two users are in the same office with the same IP address.

Decline reason:

You obviously violated WP:COWORKER policy. Your comment that you never colluded in any way that violates Wikipedia Standards is obviously not true. Anyway, you are blocked by a WP:CHECKUSER, so ordinary administrators may not unblock you without consent from a checkuser. You should either contact the blocking checkuser here (using wp:pings) or contact WP:arbcom for further unblock requests. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Nomination of AppFolio for deletion

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

MarioGom (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)