Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
Good morning Unscintillating, thanks for the assistance on the Palm Island Tragedy article yesterday, unfortunately I couldn't get to it yesterday to add in more content, the structure you have created will assist greatly. WikiTownsvillian22:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Great Palm Island is officially an island, not a locality like Palm Island so dab (, Queensland) not needed see here. I attempted a move to Great Palm Island which failed, so will file a non-controversial move request in a while. Just letting you know why. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Hi Unscintillating. You are doing a good job fixing up the article. However, my major concern is that its notability is not enduring enough (Number #4 in WP:INDISCRIMINATE). If you can demonstrate that it is still relevant now (maybe with some more recent refs) I feel your efforts would be more successful in saving the article. Cheers AIRcorn(talk)02:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see you are doing your best to source Katherine Sweetman. Personally still think she is not notable but I see I should have put more evidence in my initial argument. What was obvious to me wasn't to other people, I see.
I want to put up Sweetman's frequent collaborator Micha Cárdenas' article up for deletion as well. The article has the same problems Sweetman's does in terms of sourcing (more self written blogs and press releases vs actual discussions of the subject) and NPOV talk (which is not surprising as the article was mostly written by Cardenas herself. It has been up for deletion before, but the consensus was weak and none of the problems of the article have been fixed over the previous year.
But, before putting it up for deletion I thought I'd tell you and give you a chance to source it and bring it around to a more NPOV perspective, if you wish XinJeisan (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're all set, file is here: File:TaquanAirLogo.jpg. It is OK to use in the article. It would be best if it is put in the infobox only. The warning on the Russian image was just basically that it wasn't necessarily usable by any other project, depending on their rules, but our rules allow non-free fair use images for logos. Herostratus (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, never mind. I only glanced at the pages and noticed that they had no significant coverage. I'd not realized that I was redirected away on two of them. Certainly my error. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you review Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source if you are going to do this sort of work. I've had to remove two really lousy sources added by you from this article. See the talk page for details. I would classify what you are doing as classic puffery in that several of the sources you have used are commercial or promotional websites and consist of outdated or just plain wrong information. You don't even seem to have noticed the obviously incorrect data from this [1] ref, which lists the year they ceased to exist as the year they were first incorporated. Please be more careful when adding references in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. I've just removed another twofour junk references added by you. Please take the time to review the reliable sources policy as indicated in my previous message. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity I feel I should point something out to you. Even if the sources you have been adding did meet the definition of a reliable source, the only coverage contained in the majority of them is directory-style information. That can address problems with verification but it has no impact on notability, which is the reason for the deletion nomination. I suppose you must have been encouraged by the result of the Taquan Air AFD, but in that case you were able to find at least a few actual reliable sources that discussed the company in detail. That is obviously not the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alumni to be included should meet Wikipedia notability criteria, and must be verifiable; a biography page in Wikipedia that does not provide a source cannot be used as a reference.
Just so you know, notability guidelines are guidelines which describe the sort of subject that is likely to have sufficient reliable independent sources to write a policy compliant article. Without sources something can satisfy every single checkbox in a guideline and still qualify for deletion. NPOV and V are canonical policy, the WP:GNG descends from them. Guy (Help!) 06:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
notability guidelines and deletion policy vs. content policies
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
And as per the name, deletion policy is policy. I believe that the only requirement in WP:N is that a topic be "worthy of notice".
I don't know what you mean by "canonical policy", and I've never heard of WP:NPOV being considered as related to the notability guidelines. Unscintillating (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think future events and breaking news reports should be incubated, but as long as I'm the only one saying that, it is just one person's opinion.
Somewhere recently I read that 2012 Summer Olympics is defined as an acceptable encyclopedic topic. Colombia at the 2012 Summer Olympics and many similar national articles allow you to check on a daily basis to see the latest medal totals for Colombia at the 2012 Summer Olympics. As long as this is the attitude about future events, it becomes hard to know where to draw the line. Personally, I wouldn't allow 2012 Summer Olympics. I think this would lead to more accurate and enduring titles and articles, such as Preparation for the 2012 Summer Olympics.
My own attitude is extremely simple: "does <thing> have 'significant coverage in independent reliable sources' ?" WP:VRS Which, in effect, means: show me 3 newspaper articles about it (or equiv RS) - if so, great, we can have an article. If not - I don't care if it's in the 'incubator', or a user subpage, or an 'article for creation' page, or whatever.
I don't really care about WP:BAND, WP:CORP, WP:PORNBIO, etc - those are guidelines, which might help users work out what is needed but...it doesn't matter. Is it 'notable' or not? That's my only question, always. Chzz ► 07:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have favored deletion in the past because the term has no general use; it is just a designation used by the state of California for economic analysis. Your new article is so well developed it almost persuades me to want to keep it. But in any case there needs to be some kind of reconciling of these duplicative articles. For one thing, the new article if kept should be renamed to Southern Border (California) since there are many other states and countries that have a southern border region.
Take a look at the other article(s) and see what you think. And before you create any more articles about these nine "regions", check to see if current articles exist - because I think many do. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A proposal has been made to rename the two abortion articles to completely new names, namely 'Opposition to legalized abortion' and 'Support for legalized abortion'. The idea, which is located at the Mediation Cabal, is currently open for opinions. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the Rescue tag does have code that links directly to the Article for Deletion Talk page (or Template or Miscellany). Just thought I would mention that. -- Avanu (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may be confusing the "Project page" with the "Discussion" page, the discussion page at AfD is rarely used. I also think you also need to chill, you violated WP:4RR within the last 36 hours, and against me today WP:NPA. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How did I attack (NPA) you? Also, thanks for clarifying; you're right, the Talk page at AfD is rarely used, my mistake. -- Avanu (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will deliberately avoid providing a diff so as not to reify this discussion as a dispute, however there was a word "you" combined with the word "impolitely"; along with two mentions of the word, "civility", one of which was in the edit comment. WP:NPA states, "This page in a nutshell: Comment on the content, not on the contributor." For what it is worth, I generally try to avoid using the word "you" in what might otherwise be a contentious response. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My perspective was that you had made a pretty callous statement about a now-banned editor. I hope asking for civility isn't a public attack. But it wasn't my intention for you to feel attacked. My apologies if this is how it came across. -- Avanu (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.
The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.
To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware
I'm not speaking to you as an administrator, as I'm tangentially involved having closed the first AfD, but as a fellow editor in what is meant to be a collegial and co-operative environment. To say an editor described above as "showing up at most articles tagged for Rescue and finding a reason to say delete" is totally out of line. So incredibly far out of line that I'm surprised I'm first here to have a word with you about it. Please try to comment on the edits, not the editor, if for no other reason than that the person who ends up looking bad here... well, it's not Hrafn. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Tangentially involved"? I reduced one of the points of logic of the previous respondent (PR) at the DRV discussion using the force of reason, where I stated in summary, "IMO, this is not coherent analysis". This logic was the last statement at the DRV, and stood for three days without refutation until the DRV closed. For three days the PR could have engaged in a "collegial and co-operative" debate. Is this posting PR's demonstration-by-example of a "collegial and co-operative environment", using phrases like "totally out of line"? The part of my opinion that recommended that PR's closing be reverted was enacted by the closure of the DRV. The editor in question edited comments the PR had made and made a posting that appeared to be a delete vote in PR's name. I found this to be an improper tactic and drew attention to the tactic. So the posting here only comes after the PR could have corrected this improper tactic, and comes instead of the PR correcting the improper tactic. I don't think the PR is "tangentially involved." Yet other examples of escalation here are the intensifiers "incredibly" and "surprised". My advice to the PR is that the first step in solving a problem is to identify the problem. Unscintillating (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're trying to be obfuscatory, so I will (for a change) be blunt:
I'm talking about the ongoing deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyle Router Firmware. Hence the heading. As well as me saying clearly "in the first AfD," which I'd have though your "force of logic" would have indicated to you I was talking about the second AfD.
Don't personalise debate. In the densely convoluted reply above, you've suggested I haven't identified the problem, so I'll copy paste the line where I do that: <begin copy> To say "an editor described above as "showing up at most articles tagged for Rescue and finding a reason to say delete" is totally out of line. <end copy> Don't personalise debate. Comment on the edits, not the editor. Don't malign Hrafn. Or me, as you've done above. Or anyone.
While I see where you're coming from, it doesn't preclude the other editors commenting and voicing their opinions. YES, it may result in POINT-y stuff being listed. But if we cannot catch it before more than a handful of editors voice their views regarding the XfD's, then I choose to be more lenient on the issue (as in, NOT retroactively toss the whole thing, especially when the resulting XfD's have run their durations. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps15:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by December 1, 2011.
The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you really just create a template with the purpose of tagging the comments of editors you disagree with on unrelated matters?--Yaksar(let's chat)17:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're trying to keep a handle on things and I really want to be helpful in that. I'm not sure if we share the same ideas on the approach to that, but other than you being a bit busy with changes, I feel like you're trying to do your best.
I was wondering if you could help me find the discussion about switching over to this First Sentence subpage, and where the group came to a decision that this was the best idea. My impression of things at the moment is that several editors feel like they are being run roughshod over, and I'm not really sure if this is sour grapes, or if it might have been a rushed consensus, so I want to get a better background in order to continue and understand the existing situation better.
Yes, today was a big surprise; unfortunately, we as a group lack the skill to make decisions, so I must respect the bully editing that appears currently to be the only possible substitute. In some cases it doesn't matter so much what we agree to as that we agree period. For my part, I really thought that editors would agree to take a break, we've been talking about it for six months now, and you'd think that editors could find something else besides WP:V to do for 2 and 1/2 more weeks, but no, somehow, the fact that a few people want to take a break seems to be a vacuum for others to get more involved. So seeing the edit war today and the continuing pressure being applied to get the essay installed ASAP was discouraging. And I was not prepared to see Blueboar drop his position that had called for final decisions to be made on WT:V. But I did some 180's and moved the plans for 15 September forward in response. If you still want to find the discussion about creating the first page, wasn't that on the 17th of August that the page was created? The events then are in many ways a ditto of today, I'll avoid saying more... Unscintillating (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My better judgement tells me I should just leave this be, but I feel like I have to at least try discussing this with you directly.
In the BRRD thread and also now on SmokeyJoe's page, it seems like you are insistent on believing that I reverted you just because of some desire for a 'showdown'. I've told you as clear and honestly as possible that that isn't how it is. I've told you, if I was mistaken, please correct me, and I've all but explicitly invited you to go ahead and re-make the changes, since my initial impression was slightly mistaken. At this point, I'm not sure what else you want, since it was your brash actions that led me to think this was a consistent pattern. I'm new to that page, and the first thing I see upon taking a great interest in it are you and SlimVirgin essentially running the show. She seems to have taken a vacation for now, and you've become a bit more relaxed with things, and so it seems like things are better. So I made a mistake in jumping to a conclusion perhaps? I'm not sure what to believe. However, your attitude toward all of this just strikes me as very resentful or greatly irritated. Meanwhile, I'm barely concerned, except I'd like to see a decent result get accomplished. I don't even really have a "side" in the debate except that people should get a chance to really collaborate with each other. I love the existing wording and I'll probably love whatever idea wins out in the end. So how about everyone just a take a deep breath and relax about things and move on? Maybe I did something that predisposed your attitude that I was something else, who knows? But I'm being honest and direct, and hopefully showing you that things can work out. -- Avanu (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please discuss this at the templates for deletion page linked above. You can make your case for retention there. My nomination was fairly neutrally worded to avoid prejudicing any arguments. But it is now too late for a speedy keep, as no one has argued to keep it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked "any" editor to revert me through the WP:BRD process, I hardly expected an edit summary such as yours. I'm not "disrupting" anything - you need to understand that. Your accusation is insulting, but I'm hardly going to make a big deal about it. Doctalk15:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but please understand that it is the action, not the person, about which I commented. The exact change that was made was polled within the last 3 weeks and received a response of five in favor and five in opposition. There has been no further discussion of the proposal. Unscintillating (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Pandora reef, 5 1/2 miles West of Fly islet, is a dangerous coral reef, nearly three-quarters of a mile long east and west, and a quarter of a mile broad. On its eastern end is situated a cresent-shaped coral grit bank, 2 feet above high water; on the western point is a smaller bank about one foot above high water." (1889) Australia directory, Volume 2 Great Britain. Hydrographic Dept pg 300
Another editor reverted you. I just restored your edit.
My personal view is that an editor needs to have a certain amount of experience editing articles and collaborating with others before commenting on changes to policies. But the issue is not that you have been editing here for some time (as you have). Any editor has a right to comment on a talk page as long as it is relevant. I assume that the revert was unintentional (I have made worse goofs) but no one should revert your comments on the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk16:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm curious about this addition you made to WP:NPP. Theoretically, the mark this page as patrolled button should only be visible on pages that are opened from Special:NewPages. Let me know if it is showing on pages opened from any other links and sources - there may be a bug. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landing flare 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of nomination for deletion of Air Napier
I've posted at four places and this makes five the text from WP:TPOC at WP:Talk page guidelines, "Editing...others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection." Multiple objections have been raised. Unscintillating (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to get the last word in after this AFD has been closed. Adding comments to closed AFDs is not allowed and maybe considered vandalism if it persists. This is not a talk page and so WP:TPOC does not apply. If you don't like the outcome of the AFD then appeal the decision. Continued attempts to add comments to this closed AFD will be reported and you risk being blocked as a result. - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You've been repeatedly informed that you need consensus on the RfC talk page, not on another talk page, not another subpage that nobody is watching, and not in another discussion that has nothing to do with this RfC. Get consensus on the RfC talk page to remove the tags. Is that understood? Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec is a response to the above post, note that the modified version follows below)
There is no need for your attitude, the stable version of the RfC is dated October 7. There was plenty of opportunity for you to help in building the plans for the RfC, you chose for whatever reason not to do so. The initial modification to the rfc tag was done without discussion, it was allowed to remain at WT:V while it was reviewed for most of a week at WP:AN where the defense of the change was abandoned. After your more recent involvement, yet more time passed with the improper tags posted at WT:V, and your viewpoint given due consideration. You have now received feedback from multiple editors. The discussion at WT:V/First sentence/Procedural has been repeatedly posted in both WT:V and WT:V/First sentence. I've explained to you before what the situation is at WT:V/First sentence/Procedural. I'm sorry that you don't want to hear it, because it means that you want to spam yet more editors. Unscintillating (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot has changed between October 7 and now. The tag was changed by editors other than myself. Multiple editors have not participated in a discussion about this topic on the RfC page, and you've been reminded of that fact. I'm not interested in spamming anyone, I'm interested in upholding the contributions of editors other than yourself. Stop acting unilaterally in discussions that have nothing to do with the RfC talk page and start collaborating with your fellow editors. I have absolutely no interest in adding or modifying the RfC tag. I'm simply upholding the wishes of other editors, the very editors you continue to ignore. We edit by consensus, not by your personal whim or preference for an old version from a month ago. Get yourself to the discussion page and talk about it if it concerns you. I'm getting really tired of having to remind you of the process, a process you've done nothing but obstruct. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've been repeatedly informed that you need consensus on the RfC talk page, not on another talk page, not another subpage that nobody is watching, and not in another discussion that has nothing to do with this RfC. Get consensus on the RfC talk page to remove the tags. Is that understood? Talking to yourself in a discussion that nobody participates in isn't consensus. Talking about the problem you perceive on another talk page that nobody watches where you advertise a meta-meta-discussion is just plain disruptive. If you want to remove the tags, ask other editors on the RfC talk page and wait for them to reply. Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This false edit summary combined with your repeated removal of RfC tags at the request of other users after you were repeatedly informed here and on the subpage that your unilateral discussion and action on the subject where you appeared to agree with yourself, indicates that you intend to continue disrupting Wikipedia. To be clear, your false edit summary where you claimed "as per review at WT:Verifiability/First sentence/Procedural" indicates no such "review", only your continued insistence on a point that was only discussed by yourself without discussing the issue with the very editors who requested the tags in the first place. Since you have not shown any sign of understanding what it means when you are asked to discuss the topic on the relevant talk page and to not act unilaterally, I will use this evidence against you when and if the time comes to file a user RfC on your behavior. Given the state of your talk page and requests from multiple users asking you to stop disrupting Wikipedia, I suspect the time to file this user RfC will come sooner rather than later. Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your usual trolling/disruption to my talk page. Your statement on this matter indicates that you either don't understand the problem or that you practice IDHT as a religion. In any case, enjoy it while you still can. Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Block protocol. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Before commenting on any of the posts requesting your comment, I urge you to learn something, anything, about the rules of Wikipedia. Your comments at this AfD show you have a lot to learn before you can comment on things like "block protocol" or anything on "notability". Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Please do not readd Rescue tags after they have been removed by members of the Rescue Project. Also, do not remove the dubious link templates until that is dealt with on the talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, like Yaksar am getting a bit tired of the WP:Wikilawyering. If you are welcome to contribute to article discussions but please stick to the merits (or lack of) of the articles and try not to take things personally. You are gaining a bit of a reputation here and your participation in AFDs is going to be increasingly ignored by admins if you dont start contributing more productively.--RadioFan (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at WCKS (college radio), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been warned before on this, if you remove the {{dubious}} templates from the WCKS (college radio) page again, you will be reported and blocked. You have been warned previously and yet you continue. This is your final warning. Please stop now.Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC) 04:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Central Notices. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You throw around numbers about how many times each person comes up. Remember that in most of those cases, the coverage is not in-depth or independent enough to satisfy WP:N. Also, it is clear that all articles nominated fail both ANYBIO and POLITICIAN Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈05:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
Actually, it is. And AFD is a perfect place to talk about it. If you don't understand it, perhaps you shouldn't be participating in further AFD discussions Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈14:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mindell Penn has had numerous updates including several new references from major newspapers such as the Sacramento Bee, Beaufort Gazette, and San Francisco Chronicle, it may be in your interest to review them in light of the deletion debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferwildcat (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to John Hartnett (physicist), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. If you want to know why the notability tag applies, then read Talk:John Hartnett (physicist)#Notability (which has been there since before you removed the template the first time) instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la. HrafnTalkStalk(P)08:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I strongly suggest that you read WP:RfA, and perhaps also WP:DELETION. As other editors have pointed out to you, familiarity with policies is essential before participating constructively in meta discussions. Some of our policies and guidelines are admittedly very complex, if you need help understanding them at any time, do feel free to ask me on my talk page. Happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Redirect" at AfD is in essence a vote for deletion, with the title of the deleted page made into a redirect page. Your comment there that doing this is a Bold editorial move seems to me like a sure fire way to an ANI dramafest; I can't imagine somebody not squalling about blanking pages like that... AfD is the correct venue, methinks. Best, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The theory is that school district pages deal with the mentioned school, or that failing that the city pages have a subsection on "Education". Some may not. In those cases a Redirect is pretty nonsensical and a correct solution would be a "Merge." Point those out at AFD if you see them! best, tim //// Carrite (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You contributed to a discussion either here or here.
I'm attempting to summarize and move the discussion forward here. You may well have this page watchlisted, but as I am trying to carry on in a slightly different place, I'm letting everyone know who contributed.--SPhilbrick(Talk)17:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your post at Talk:Anselm J. McLaurin was surprisingly aggressive, so I thought I would respond at your talk page. I'm happy to post further at the article talk page, but thought we should discuss the issue first.
Did you not know when you posted whether you were going to remove it or truncate it?
I've reviewed hundreds of articles with contributions by Richard Arthur Norton, many of which use the quote parameter. In many cases, I have not made any changes, in some cases, I have removed the quote, in other cases, I have truncated it back to the material directly supporting the contention. I'm trying to post my rationale when I make a change, and crafted some standard wording to place on the talk page, partly to explain my edit, and partly to encourage readers to contribute to the discussion.
You said:
just how did you weigh into the "consensus" the statement at WP:NFC, "...but totally removing the quote is IMO vandalism."
To be honest, I missed it. You added it Christmas Eve. While I was editing then, I was rather pre-occupied with a mass template restoration. When I next looked at the discussion, I noted that RAN had weighed in, and as I was intensely interested in his comments, I focused on those, and did not noticeconsider the vandalism comment until you pointed it out. I reject the notion that good faith edits should be treated as vandalism.
At the time I wrote my quasi-templated message (25 December) I hadn't seen any significant dissent from the position of others that the quote parameter should be used sparingly. I realize your comment precedes that, but I didn't notice until
After I saw RAN's dissent, I stopped removing quotes, as I felt the need for a broader consensus, which is what spurred me to post here and notify you. I think when I scanned the names of people who contributed was the first time I saw your comment.
You said:
What is your analysis of the statement at WP:NFC in relationship to this article's quote, "If an editor doesn't like the length of a quote, he/she should consider reducing its length..."?
I've done that on occasion. and sometimes removed an entire quote, and sometimes left an entire quote. Which lead me to the position that I thought we needed more guidance. While I thought I could defend each of my decisions, I didn't have solid written guidance to lean on.
You said:
Also, please note that the section here that your comment refers to as "a footnote" is called "References".
Footnotes are commonly placed in a section called references. Sometimes called "notes". Practices vary.
You said:
Editors have commented at WP:NFC about the benefit of protecting against dead links.
Yes, I know, I brought up the issue myself (at WT:Citing sources) I won't speak for Moonriddengirl, but I predict she might respond "dead links are a legitimate concern, and we ought to take steps to mitigate the problem, but potential dead links are not a rationale for violating copyright rules." And if she doesn't say it, I did. (That said, I defer to her expertise, and if she says that quotes are a good way to combat link rot, I'll happily use them more often.--SPhilbrick(Talk)18:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of this thread anyway? Just seems to be you yammering on, perhaps in an attempt to circumvent your restrictions elsewhere Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈03:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I hate to bother you but is there any way you can help me save Metro Walk? I think this article is headed to the chopping block but I have been able to find quite a few references. I need some help editing it and finding more sources if there is something that you could do to help I would be most appreciative.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. You're the one distorting my comments. It's clear that people don't want to discuss this issue anymore. There is about a 1% chance I'm blocked for what you call distortion. Please just close the thread; it's pure evidence that you just won't let this go Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈00:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At ANI PBP says, "He seems to be misinterpreting everything I say for no apparent reason." The word "everything" is yet another example of distortion. I've said nothing about a block. The previous post is not consensus-building behavior. Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've said that I'm misinterpreting everything you say. Did you mean that literally, or is that a distortion, and I'm not misinterpreting everything you say? Unscintillating (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone doubts that both PBP and LWC know that we are losing patience but they don't need third parties stirring the pot to keep this dispute running. So, just to be clear, if I do have to get my bit back to do some blocking and you are involved in the latest argument, I'll add you to the list of people I block. You are not helping and should have nothing to do with PBP in any way shape or form. I won't be available to respond to any comments today but I trust I have made myself clear. SpartazHumbug!06:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is requesting protection from an uncivil attack now stirring the pot? Like if someone hits me in the nose, it is my fault for letting my nose get in the way? You know I respect you, but that is because I see (at least I think I see) beyond the anger. PBP is back at the ANI section you just closed with one or two questions, he/she lost count. Are you going to reopen the discussion and then step away? You've already lost credibility by talking as buds with PBP on your talk page, and then closing three ANI sessions without issuing any warning to PBP...not to mention closing against unanimous consensus for a combined sanction with LWC. Thank you for visiting my page, my door has been open to you for a long time. Unscintillating (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, didn't lose count, you started two separate sub-threads in one of the discussions for a total of four (aka more in three weeks than any other editor has in three and a half years) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈17:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that if you checked talk pages more clearly and my comments at ANI, you would find sufficient evidence that both parties are more then clear of my displeasure with their recent interactions. I think you will also find that PBP is being hounded slightly more then he is hounding and that an imbalance in warnings is therefore inevitable. I do hope you have a clear understanding of what my warning entails. SpartazHumbug!20:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, you are the only person in this world that knows what you mean about stirring the pot. It is a subjective concept that could apply to any edit I make in the encyclopedia and it has no time bounds. Further, since the "warning" was issued for bringing an action at ANI—in fact, the first such action I have ever initiated as a Wikipedia editor—it is improper no matter what it means. It seems to do no good to carefully and analytically analyze things with you, I gave you a list of nine sources and asked you if they passed WP:GNG, you said the list was too long—why is that? Unscintillating (talk) 08:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating two different situations but I see that the tension between the two is dying down and that you have not inserted yourself into the argument further, so thank you for pulling back. SpartazHumbug!02:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose what you call conflating is your way of avoiding a careful and analytical answer to the question of whether nine specific sources satisfy WP:GNG. But IMO the absence of a careful and analytical answer to that question seems consistent with the continued use of vague escalatory terms like "stirring" and "pulling". I'd like to know if you are going to apologize for or at least withdraw the improper warning. Unscintillating (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15 Khordad (Paramont) Intersection's talk page.
^ A note just so you know - I refactored a portion of the latest message since notifying you. WP:EN and WP:UE had additional text of relevance and I wanted to clarify one of the other points. — C M B J05:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Un. I started a discussion about edit warring, abusing Twinkle, violating wp:v and wp:or, removing appropriate tags without proper reason, taunting, and incivility. The issue you raise is one I'm happy to discuss. But nothing you've said bears on or would excuse that behavior.
Only 2 of those 25 AFDs closed as Keeps. The remainder, I believe, were in accord with my nominations -- which indicated that I was open to deletion or redirect. I was in-consensus 92% of the time. I hope that you do not mean to suggest that that is cause for hounding, coupled with the behavior detailed.
Of course there are differences between deletes and redirects. In general, I've been open to both. I think the difference slight. In the case of a delete the reader does not go to the prior stand-alone article, but instead ... nowhere. In the case of a redirect, they are (in the case of primary schools) generally redirected to a locale (such as a city) or a school board, that generally lists the name of the school. The difference? Minimal, IMHO. That's the primary reason I have not generally objected to redirects; nor, however, have I objected to deletions. At the project, some people think we should redirect everything possible ("redirects are cheap"), and would redirect all hundreds of thousands of school articles that we could redirect. Others at the project don't see the value.
My view as to these primary articles is that I am open to either deletion or redirect. I also recognize that while usually the consensus supports me, some editors disagree and believe that the articles should be kept.
I do know that if I only thought that a redirect was the answer, and if I thought that a redirect would be non-controversial, that I could if I chose boldly redirect the article. But: a) I've also been open to deletion; and b) I recognize that some editors wish to have the ability to discuss keeping the article, and that bold redirects would hide the fact that I have rid the Project of the standalone article from those editors who would like to keep it but who only follow AfD and not the article itself.
I've in the past state my view that it would be good for us to streamline the process, and that I would be happy to support a notability guideline on schools that reflects consensus, whatever that consensus may be.
Here is one thought -- if it is deemed appropriate, I would be happy if any of my AfDs were speedy closed as redirects by others who are certain that that is the correct result, dictated by current guidelines. I don't see it necessarily, but since I am open to redirects I personally would have no problem with it.
Or -- as I said -- if that were the clear written consensus approach that should be taken by editors vis-a-vis such schools, I would be happy to follow that consensus.
Sometimes school AfDs do of course result in deletions, and sometimes in keep. The common thread that I see is that the vast majority of the time, they result in the stand-alone article being stricken, though of course some of the time the consensus is to Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs)
Sorry, but I don't remember what redirect you are talking about. I agree that if content was moved, the prod must be reverted to restore the history tracability (and would be happy to help you with that). And retargetting the deleted redirect to the new location would seem appropriate, though if there wasn't any history, it might be easier to simply recreate than to undelete and then retarget. Unfortunately, since I don't remember the title, I can't do either one. Let me know what you need. Rossami(talk)03:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Unscintillating: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.
Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.
Hello Unscintillating, I saw that you declined to accept the ground rules at the mediation. I'm sorry to hear that you won't be participating - I was hoping that I could have had your input. About removing the "truth" wording, I assure you that there are no preordained results of the mediation process. On the contrary, we will make a range of different drafts, and the one that is finally used will not be determined by us, but by a community-wide RfC. Also, based on my current perception of the feedback we got from the last RfC, it seems likely that at least one of the versions we draft won't include the "verifiability, not truth" wording, and that at least one of them will include it - this is the very issue this process is meant to resolve, after all. The "under discussion" tag is just a peripheral matter, and I actually don't care about it all that much. The clause in the ground rules that asks people to not edit the tag while mediation is going on is just to stop people from edit warring over it, and to get them to discuss the real issues in a way that is most likely to result in a lasting resolution.
If it's not too much trouble, I have a few questions I'd like to know the answer to. Are you intending to debate this issue on WT:V while the mediation is still in progress? And would you mind a draft going to RfC that you hadn't had any input on? And would it change your stance on participating in the mediation if the tag issue was handled in a different way? If you could answer these it would really help me decide on how to proceed. And just to make sure you know, if you change your mind before Thursday, you can always add yourself back in to the mediation. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius♫05:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for caring enough about my viewpoint to visit my talk page. Here is point 4 of the ground rules:
Finally, I ask that all the participants agree to leave the "under discussion" tag alone for the duration of this mediation. This means not adding it, removing it, altering it, or even discussing it. I intend to remove the tag until the RfC is live, keep it in for the duration of the RfC, and remove it again when the RfC is closed.
You say, "I intend to remove the tag...when the RfC is closed." Yet above you say, "...I assure you that there are no preordained results of the mediation process." Which is it? Further, you say, "I intend to remove the tag until the RfC is live". Therefore, with the point being reductio ad absurdum, the mediation is not a discussion? Saying above "...I actually don't care about it all that much" seems inconsistent with taking ownership of the tag before, during, and after the planned RfC. If the role of a bully-editor could have resolved this issue, we would not be where we are today. A reason for me to stay out of the mediation is to help out with restoring community consensus if you remove the "under discussion" tag, and if this happens we'll likely be required to discuss the matter at WT:V. I don't know how much more I'll be involved at WT:V or elsewhere. My concept for a new RfC is not that complicated, first move everything in WP:V about truth to a new content guideline. Then add a footnote to WP:V that mentions "VNT", because there are 1200 references on Wikipedia to such. Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I see where the problem is here. It really is true that I don't care whether the tag is included in WP:V or not. To explain why, it might help for me to go back to how I heard about this dispute in the first place. I was aware of the larger VNT discussion before, of course, but the first time I really got to know about the tagging dispute in detail was at the recent thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard. My take on the issue was that editors had spent a lot of time debating the tag itself, but that the only way which this issue could be resolved for good would be to settle the underlying debate about the VNT wording. The mediation is aimed squarely at working towards resolving the wording issue; the only reason for including a clause about the tag at all is that the tagging dispute was the reason this came to mediation in the first place. I personally don't mind whether the tag is in or out, but as a mediator it felt appropriate to do something about it, just to stop people from talking about the tag and to get them focused on the main issues. Also, while in a sense I am "dictating" how the tag will be treated, my position is a compromise position; the tag is neither fully in, nor fully out. It also makes sense (to me) from the viewpoint of alerting uninvolved editors, as an RfC will be easier to participate in than the long and complex talk page discussion. If the mediation progresses to the point where I can remove the tag, then it would be under 0RR; if someone uninvolved in the mediation wants to revert me, then I will simply let them. The same would apply for putting the tag back in.
Finally, as this mediation is an attempt to get everyone to see past the tagging issue and concentrate on the real problem, it can only progress with the consent of all the main editors involved. If some editors wish to keep discussing the tag and the other parts of the policy but do not wish to participate in mediation - and yes, this includes you - then it is likely that the mediation won't go ahead at all. The structure that mediation would bring is not worth factionalising the discussion at WT:V, in my opinion. There would be little point in creating a big RfC if it didn't truly reflect the opinions of all editors who have been involved in the discussion. I think that mediation would be the quickest and most pain-free way of getting thiis whole issue dealt with, but I can't force other editors to agree with me. It is completely up to you what you do. I hope this has answered your questions, but if there is anything else you would like to ask, I will do my best to answer. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius♫06:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that there are too many people involved, and too much text, for you to be aware that I have had no part in the tag dispute. I was not even aware of the tag dispute until the MedcabBot posted on my page. The tag went in last Summer during a time when some of us had called for a brief Wikibreak from discussing the VNT/"First sentence" issues, so if anything, I was opposed to changes being made during the supposed Wikibreak. In fact, the Wikibreak seemed to create a vacuum that nature abhorred, and new editors arrived convinced that they could solve problem(s) with a few quick edits of WP:V, and a flurry of edits resulted.
I don't need to read about the tag dispute to believe that removing the tag has the purpose of hiding a state of non-consensus. This is not a new problem, much of last Summer was spent with complaints about discussion, people saying that since the April and June RfCs had resulted in a 50/50 split, that "no-consensus" had been achieved, and it was time to move on. This is contrary to WP:Consensus, which calls for discussion. I think you correctly ascertain that the tag is not the source of the problem. I'd suggest that you return the tag dispute to DRN, and proceed with the Mediation Cabal without point 4. An alternative is that since I have not been keeping up with the WT:V page, I am not one of the "main" participants.
Just to let you know that I've struck the second sentence in ground rule number four. There's still no obligation for you to get involved in the mediation now that this has been done, but if you do want to participate then you would be very welcome. Best — Mr. Stradivarius♫15:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for agreeing to the ground rules! I have already started step two, but would you mind adding your statement to the ones already there before you submit your draft? Also, let me know if you'll have any difficulty in meeting the deadline. Thanks again — Mr. Stradivarius♫15:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Unscintillating, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius♫17:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Unscintillating, this is another update about the verifiability mediation. We have now started step five, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the mediation page to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius♫17:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been inviting all contributors to diacritics discussions (for or against) to WT:BLP to discuss a proposal. Unfortunately a vocal minority make this a dead duck, but I still notify you for form. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About your comment at the discussion that listing all the instances of incivility would take a noticeboard - I want you to know that I take this very seriously. I know that we haven't agreed on everything in this mediation, but if you feel that people have been behaving poorly, then I want to deal with it so that everyone can continue the mediation in an environment of cooperation and respect. If you want, you can post the diffs of the problematic comments here, and I will take a look at them. Or if you would prefer that things remain confidential, then you can email them to me. Best — Mr. Stradivarius♫16:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that my talk page is not a noticeboard, and that I don't have an email for Wikipedia. Civility policy and talk page guidelines are fairly restrictive about discussing incivility. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leslie Daigle an article that was nominated for deletion recently in which you presented your opinion is again on the chopping block and this may or may not be an agenda item of concern for yourself.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
in regards to participating in and closing, while it appears a conflict, anyone is able to reopen, or as the case often is, add more to the bottom of the thread outside the box which upsets less people, that often happens. However, when all dynamics have been clearly examined and the discussion has reached an appropriate place, a closure can be effected by anyone in certain discussions, I haven't done many, and I am new and inexperienced at it, but computing interactions between other editors is second nature to me, unfortunately, I can also see that wikipedia is inevitably screwed completely as the logical conclusion to it's current nature. Shrug. Anyhow there are a few at ANI I have tied up, Jaguar's was quite large and recent, and there was thanks for it in email too. Still, I'd rather have something better to do than hang around here addicted to this shithouse. Penyulap ☏20:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
notability requires sufficient prose sources to write an encyclopedia article
The other point is that SmokeyJoe seems to still be supporting a 2006 version of notability in which notability requires sufficient prose sources to write an encyclopedia article. Unscintillating (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I replied there, but I suspect that it could lead to a conversation that is off-topic for the thread it is in. I am fascinated as to what made you say this, why it is a "point", etc. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the 2006-12-23 version of WP:N wherein a diff added a dictionary definition of "notability", "This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about the topic."
In my reply at WT:Notability (people) I had drawn attention to a point of agreement between us, and one that would specifically lead to mentioning in a notability guideline that insufficient WP:V sources can be a reason for deleting an article, even when the topic passes one of our notability guidelines. Instead of picking up on this point of agreement, your response in the reverts at WP:N and WP:ORG targeted two of the supporting quotes in the body of my reply.
Your WP:N revert removed a point that has been in the guideline since December 2006, so symbolically, it suggests a return to 2006.
Your statement of 02:32 7 May 2012 specifically mentions, "sourced commentary, which means the writer, in prose, is writing about the subject".
While preparing this, I saw your reply at WT:ORG, and I'm also responding there, where I give an example of a notable topic without WP:V verifiable material. With respect, Unscintillating (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to explain my comment better. 1) no competition for primary topic, so presumably anyone searching would be searching for her. 2) unelected candidates rarely warrant stand-alone articles, and I saw nothing to convince me otherwise. 3) we have an article whose notability is without question, where she is mentioned. 4) until the election, a redirect is warranted so that readers get there. 5) If she wins the election, automatic notability could restore a stub article. 6) Until notability is established, guidelines change, or another Leslie Daigle deserves primary topic, a redirect functions long term.
I consistently suggest redirect for unelected politicians regardless of location or party, although presidential nominees of other parties, and nominees where presumptively elected or unopposed warrant discussion. Dru of Id (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not refactor other editors' comments without their permission first. The only exceptions I can think of are blatant vandalism, BLP or outing violations, fixing indents, signing unsigned comments, striking out !votes by confirmed socks, placing SPA tags, removing obvious duplicate !votes, and cleaning up obvious editing mess-ups by newbies. If you have other legitimate concerns about an editors comments, contact them first, and if that does not meet with your interpretation of policy, then contact an administrator for advice. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing DBig's reply to my request at their talk page.
FWIW I don't look for, or want, formal apologies, as when individuals feel forced to offer one, it is my experience they are likely to harbor dark thoughts and wait for an opportunity to turn the tables or otherwise retaliate.
Hi, concerning this edit, isn't that the same precursor publication as mentioned in Temenos Academy Review? The editors and start year are the same (or almost so: 1981 instead of 1980), or am I mistaken and is this yet another publication?
In addition, I think that either the two articles should be merged or, preferably, some content moved from one to the other. Given that there is an article on the academy, I don't think that much discussion on the academy in the article on the review is warranted. Any sourced material should be moved to the academy article.
About CS Lewis: when I enter the ISBN into Diberri's templatefiller, I get: {{cite book |author=Hooper, Walter |title=The collected letters of C. S. Lewis |publisher=HarperSanFrancisco |location=[San Francisco] |year=2004 |pages= |isbn=0-06-081922-7 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}. That sounds more logical to me than putting Lewis as the author. As I understand it, this is a book written by Hooper about the letters written by Lewis (obviously containing a fair number or even all of them). As a matter of curiosity, how did you get the quote? I don't see a way in GBooks to search inside the book.
A final thing is the use of the word "journal". We usually reserve this for periodicals that are peer reviewed, but I see no indication that this is the case here. I'm not sure why you would object to "magazine" (that's not a pejorative term at all), but perhaps we could compromise on "publication" and/or "periodical"? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1, I have seen no evidence that a Temenos Review existed, this is what WP:V is about, which is having reliable material; so I'm not seeing how giving readers an unambiguously bad Wikilink is better than letting them click on the See also and use their own devices to connect the parts. The issue of 1980 vs. 1981 is interesting, both the Academy and the Berry book give 1980, but the libraries and other sources say 1981. Also, 13 annual issues with the last in 1992 would work better as starting in 1980. Just in general, the Temenos Academy article is not well sourced, and it is hard to touch it without getting involved in additional issues.
As for coverage of the academy in the Review article, there are two to two and a half sentences dedicated to the Academy, and the reason those two sentences are there is to give some flavor to what the Review is about. Yes, the sources I've found would be useful in the Academy article, and maybe some other articles.
As for the CS Lewis book, I don't know why you are having a problem, when I click on the citation, page 1706 opens up, and I can click the arrow and see the rest of the bio of Raine on page 1705. I don't actually know who wrote the bio, I skimmed twenty reviews without finding any mention of bios in the book, just one brief mention that Hooper had added relevant info to support the letters. The date you've found of 2004 tells me that one of the two ISBNs is wrong, the book I've cited is 2007 and the third of a three-volume set, I use reftag.appspot.com.
As for the word "journal", I've already cited sources, four sources mention "journal". It is an academically oriented publication originally intended to be at the "highest level of scholarship and talent". THE calls it a "collection of essays" in the article, but also categorizes it with "Social science & humanities journals". And the school themselves repeatedly self-describe the material as a "journal"; although in general, the sources avoid such categorizing. And as for your argument as to what "we" do, an in-house language that Wikipedians use sounds like WP:OR. I believe that on Wikipedia, we follow the sources. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, if I click the link, I don't get any page, just the book cover. The publication year in WorldCat is given as 2004-2007, even though no separate volumes are given. Often, different parts of a multivolume work have different ISBNs, could that be the case here, too? As for the start year of the "Temenos Review", I trust the academy itself and the Berry book more than library catalogs, which often contain inaccuracies. Could it be that "Temenos Review" in the academy article is an incorrect contraction of "Temenos" and "Temenos Academy Review" and that "Temenos" is actually what is meant? As for "journal", the Wall Street Journal is also called journal and sources will talk about "the journal", but still we call it a newspaper. When a lead states something like "XXX is a thing" to wikilink "thing", so that readers can see what exactly it is. Journal is sort of a dab page, so should better not be linked. Academic journals are defined as being peer-reviewed, which does not seem to be the case here. Would it be acceptable to link "journal" in the lead of the article to magazine (using a piped link: journal)? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[Journal] states, "Although journal is sometimes used as a synonym for "magazine", in academic use, a journal refers to a serious, scholarly publication, most often peer-reviewed." This seems to fit. Likewise, my sense of English tells me that this is a correct term in the context; whereas "magazine" is correct only in the technical sense as used at the libraries, and the colloquial sense is vulgar in the context, even if not, as you note, pejorative. Also, I noticed that the Lewis/Hooper material refers to the publication as a "journal", so that is now five sources. I'm also reminded that the people involved at Temenos are highly literate, with an audience of the highly literate, so their self-identification carries weight. Your specific concern seems to be to avoid an implication in the article that the "journal" is "peer-reviewed" in the sense of the in-house language of Wikipedians. I think this is already accomplished by noting that the publication includes poetry, although we could add that the THE reviewer characterizes the material as "a collection of essays".
The Lewis letters seem to have many ISBNs and editions. I looked at Worldcat and found more ISBNs than I wanted to figure out. Perhaps you found a three-volume set that would be listed as 2004. I found out that p. 1647 is a section entitled "Biographical Appendix". Worldcat entries often list Hooper as a 2nd author. I can use Google books to search inside the book with Javascript enabled. It appears that Hooper (1931- ) was an American secretary or "literary advisor" to Lewis with a bachelor's in English from U North Carolina, 1953. Ok, looking a little more, it turns out Walter Hooper has an article on Wikipedia, lol.
That is an interesting observation. It will take me some time to look into it but I'll do what I can. Thank you for raising the issue. Rossami(talk)13:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not your finest hour although I do agree that this would have been left for an admin to reclose or DRV than have another non-admin undo it. SpartazHumbug!14:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find that an undocumented innuendo ("revert warring over NACs") and a casting of aspersions ("not your finest hour") that include the combative word "warring", and cite no policies or guidelines, are not helpful. Again, are you trying to build consensus? Unscintillating (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As near as I can figure out, it may be a slang term for something that bypasses the electronic throttle / speed limiter such as a switch or relay. Probably an open relay given the name. Would put full battery voltage on the motor for maximum acceleration and speed. Illegal in some areas, would invalidate most warranties, and likely to reduce the motor's life. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it was illegal, I'd think it would have a well-known name. Also, I'm not seeing this in my searches, although I'm ignoring the youtube hits. Unscintillating (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one http://www.ehow.com/how_2292171_make-electric-scooter-faster.html (blocked by spam filter, so no direct link) google scooter electric "go faster". Some countries and states set an intrinsic speed limits (such as California which is 25 mph). Manufactures put an electronic governor on the speed controller. As a "how to" is not an appropriate article: delete. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: regarding Petrol engine "spark accelerator" is a synonym for "spark advance" see Ignition timing. Today advance is performed electronically. Previously, it was done with weights using centrifugal force and engine speed as well as vacuum. Earlier it was done manually using a lever such as on a Ford Model T. So this spark accelerator has nothing to do with spark advance / ignition timing. Jim1138 (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SPEEDY, db-g1 "In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply." I have used db-g1 and had them declined for the same reason. db-a7 is probably more applicable: "no indication of importance" It's hard to select a speedy criteria. The article should disappear shortly. Best Jim1138 (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is my line, I don't know why you've posted on my talk page. If I haven't followed a guideline or instruction, then perhaps you can point me to the documentation. If this is not currently documented, then perhaps you can add it to the appropriate instruction or guideline. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit [3] your edit summary used the word "libel". While no one is accusing you of making legal threats, some here are more touchy than others. It's best to try and avoid using such language whenever possible and avoid any noticeboard nonsense. Thanks. little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer17:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to be missing your point. Did you read the material that was removed and compare it with the actual source which I quoted? And all editors should be protecting the encyclopedia. If you look at the edit history, you will see that an editor restored the material anyway, so I don't know how avoiding such language would have been more constructive. Unscintillating (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just read your comment here, Unscintillating. If you don't mind, can you point out what the problem was? Your comment "It doesn't say that SPLC did or did not designate IFI as a hate group" has me confused. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got it - it was the sequence of the timing of our edits (on the article and on the talk page) that had me confused. No problem and thanks... Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
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
Accusing another editor of "misdirection" is indeed "insulting". Please take your own advice and comment on content, not contributors unless I've somehow mistaken what you've said and the bit about "red herring, ad hominem, misdirection, proof by assertion, irrelevant truism, and moving the goalpost" was somehow about the article's content. If you're going to make pointless threats of "a visit to ANI" you might want to read this first, and then give this a glance. We've both said our piece, and I have nothing more to say on the matter, and I will take your talk page off of my watchlist so any response will not be read. Best of luck. - SudoGhost02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing another editor of "misdirection" is indeed "insulting". Please take your own advice and comment on content, not contributors unless I've somehow mistaken what you've said and the bit about "red herring, ad hominem, misdirection, proof by assertion, irrelevant truism, and moving the goalpost" was somehow about the article's content. - SudoGhost02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) reposting the comment to which I replied Had you provided a diff; it would have been immediately obvious to the casual observer that I wrote about "the post", and said nothing about the contributor; "IMO, the previous post contains red herring, ad hominem, misdirection, proof by assertion, irrelevant truism, and moving the goalpost." Since you've referred to the "article's content", please review WP:TPG, which discusses commenting on "contributions" rather than contributors. Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding of WP:TPO is critically inaccurate. I would highly suggest you read WP:TPO and WP:NPA before you find yourself blocked from editing. To suggest that prepending a comment with "The previous post contains" somehow absolves any following words is absolute nonsense, and if you have any doubts on this manner you are more than welcome to ask a Wikipedia administrator; referring to someone's post as "misdirection" et al is not a commment on article content, it is accusing someone of personal behavior ("misdirection", "moving the goalpost"). Now if you'll excuse me I'll take this off my watchlist finally, and leave you to your reading. - SudoGhost03:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that you insist on claiming that I've attacked you, even after I've explained that such did not happen. If I say that a previous post was incompetent, this does not attack the editor, the force of reason is directed at the comment. A competent editor can make incompetent arguments, it happens all the time. A competent editor can withdraw or abandon an incompetent argument. I hope you've gotten the message from reading WP:TPG#YES that "content" includes the content of posts, i.e., contributions, not just the content of articles. Unscintillating (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look Unscinillating; just drop it! You've said your piece on this matter and you need to stop pushing it in our faces as though it was the only way to look at things! If you keep at it you may well end up being blocked for the same reasons as stillstanding sans the threats! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve07:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to this: What exactly does you wanting stillstanding banned have to do with Avanu? And as a matter of fact I am "secure that you have the force of reason with you". And how am I making a threat when I am merely stating what will happen if you keep this up! Finally: Criticizing WP:STICK as being a weak argument? That's a telltale sign of someone desperately clutching at straws! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve08:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was a reference to the previous shortcut to the BOOMERANG content, which referred to a certain football player who shot himself in the leg. It was determined to be a BLP violation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)18:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warning, Unscintillating - unfortunately I'm not in a position to repair the mistake - that AFD now has a close in progress on it, and is clearly requested that no edits are made to the page. The reason it altered the time stamp is when I fixed the edit, I copied it using my own local timezone - which is One hour ahead of GMT. I won't make that mistake again though :) Thanks for the heads up. FishBarking?23:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, in relation to the conversation on DHeyward's talk page - please don't tell other users to disregard our posts - one minor cock up does not denote a "lack of technical competence" - Both Sudoghost and I know what we're talking about, and the situation regarding Non-administrative closure of an AFD is precisely as I listed it there. "One termite doth not a hill make." FishBarking?23:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've given some very good advice on the Veena Malik talk page and at BLP/N. I have also posted similar advice. Unfortunately, Ronz doesn't appear to be very open-minded, is completely ignoring WP:VERIFY, and is misapplying guidelines as a way of falsely claiming that our advice violates BLP, which of course is total nonsense. Maybe you can follow-up on the talk page and try to get him to see reason. Thanks for your input on this. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merockys has changed his position and now agrees with you and I. Hopefully, you can say something on the talk page to help finally put an end to the matter. It's been going on for two years, so it's time to resolve it. Thanks for your participation. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BLPN discussion has been taken totally off track. I've contacted Merockys to see if he wants to continue with his concerns and suggestions.
In the meantime, have you looked at Rebecca De Mornay, or Lydia Cornell for that matter? At Rebecca De Mornay they did something along the lines you are suggesting - not adding a birth date to the article, but adding a footnote identifying the two likely dates. However, the sources were better and not so contradictory. The more the matter was researched, the clearer the solution became. Similarly, at Lydia Cornell we just researched it until it was clear, but took it to BLPN for review before adding it to the article.
I wonder if you are calling the quote parameter in a reference a footnote? By footnote I meant something like at 1930 Palm Island tragedy. Maybe my survey at Rebecca De Mornay just failed to find an example when it was being used. Regarding the Rebecca De Mornay article, I see that the NYT now gives the 1959 DOB, but lists POB as Los Angeles while the article says POB is Santa Rosa. This appears to be a BLP violation.
Back to Veena Malik, once again I see you using the word "contradictory". I sense that you are coming from a POV that Wikipedia only presents or should only present non-contradictory information. The contradiction comes in trying to speak with Wikipedia's voice to state one birth date. IMO the existence of sources with differing viewpoints is not itself a contradiction. Is the set of information that you call a contradiction insignificant or more than insignificant? Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, once again your comments are excellent. However, it would much more productive if all these comments were transferred to the article's talk page so that other editors with an interest in the article will be aware of them. Ronz is now taking his comments to three different pages (BLP/N, the article's talk page, and here) instead of just limiting them to the article's talk page, where this matter is now being handled. Sadly, we've explained Ronz's misunderstanding of various guidelines and concepts several times, including the "contradictory" one you had to clarify yet again for him, but he inexplicably keeps repeating them. Anyway, see you at the talk page so we can get closure on this matter. Thanks for your help on this. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Unscintillating: Do you feel it is encyclopedic to include the four years for which we currently have sources? Do you feel doing so would meet BLPs emphasis on accuracy? If we find additional sources for a different birth year, do we just add those too? Do you feel these sources are reliable when the exact same publisher has published contradictory information without comment?
I don't have Rebecca De Mornay on my watch list, and have not reviewed anything else about it other than how the editors there handled her date of birth, so let's not get distracted by the state of the article.
Unscintillating, Ronz refuses to continue discussing the matter at the article's talk page where the matter is being handled. This is a violation of talk page guidelines regarding posting the same thread in multiple forums. He continues to ignore this, keeps posting vague nonsense on multiple pages in violation, and also reopened the closed BLP/N. He also continues his irrelevant focus on another article (De Mornay), which obviously carries no weight and clearly sets no precedent for the tens of thousands of other BLPs. I suggest the editor read WP:OTHERSTUFF. It may become necessary to report his disruptive behavior at AN/I. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, regarding your question about BLP accuracy, I don't think that accuracy is achieved by whitewashing the facts as we know them. Like at Rebecca De Mornay, now that they've removed the alternate reports about birth dates, how are readers supposed to trust Wikipedia if they find sources that refer to the 1961 or 1962 birth dates? Thanks for the diff with the footnote, I agree that there was something unencyclopedic about that footnote, but it is subtle. Perhaps the problem is that it reads like WP:OR and could use some editing. That suggests to me that for the Veena article we might consider a specific proposal for a footnote to get a sense of how it will read. I'll propose that on the talk page. Unscintillating (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm still hesitant to continue at the talk page at this time. It looks like the dust is settling, but I don't think there's any rush. --Ronz (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the notability of Steven H. Temares, perhaps because I wrote the article. I believe he attended -- and graduated -- from Paramus High School based on the yearbook reference. You don't believe that he graduated and you think that the article from the Wall Street Journal (where the only mention is of his having lived in Paramus, not of his having attended Paramus High School) is necessary to establish the bona fides of the yearbook, one that you have accomplished by doing a facial comparison based on the pictures included in both the yearbook and the WSJ article. I have no problem relying on the yearbook alone, but you believe that the yearbook and WSJ article must both appear to establish the reference. Can you point me to where this apparent WP:SYNTH issue has been blessed as appropriate? WP:SYNTH states that "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." So the yearbook is source A establishing that a Steven H. Temares attended the high school, source B is the WSJ article that says that BB&B CEO Steven H. Temares grew up in Paramus and conclusion C is that the two sources refer to the same person, the apparent definition of original research via synthesis. And why is there no explanation to the reader to explain how the synthesis via facial analysis was performed and that the two sources must be used in combination? Alansohn (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there could be more than one Temares in Paramus with the same name, the problem with the yearbook alone is, where is a reliable source that tells readers that the Temares in the yearbook is the one that became the CEO? As far as the issue of using face recognition, I acknowledge that you've cited the words "stated" and "mentioned", but I believe that there is no fundamental difference between reading and understanding meaning, and looking at a picture and understanding meaning. I'd also say that identifying reliable sources is an editorial decision, not a matter of content policy, Category:Wikipedia_content policies. Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I absolutely disagree with your untimely closure of this AfD. "Speedy keep" is used for disruptive AfDs (if someone nominated Barack Obama or George W. Bush, for example), or if there are immediately a number of well-argued keep !votes and no deletions !votes ("snow keep"). Unless you want to argue that my nomination was disruptive, there is no reason to close it before it has run its course. In addition, the closing statement is muddled: "keep" means that an article is notable. This opens the door to endless edit warring with the group of students that are publishing this journal, who, I predict, will undo your redirect within days. (Things would be different after an appropriate AfD that would be closed "redirect"). That the subject matter is also covered in another article is not a "keep" reason either (perhaps it should be removed or at least shortened there, too; I haven't looked yet, but I will). Finally, your statement on the article talk page about the remark on student membership being promotional is wrong. Most US law reviews are edited by students. Membership is open to only certain groups of students and it is completely normal to mention that in articles on such reviews. Please revert your closing and redirection. Bots have been at it, too, so please make sure that after reverting, the debate is still listed at the appropriate places. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: the journal infobox is designed to accommodate both the print and online edition of a journal (that's why there are separate fields for the ISSN and eISSN), no need to use two infoboxes for one and the same journal. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So do you want to talk about info boxes, AfD, or whether or not a sentence now in an edit history is promotional? WP:SK#1 occurs when the nomination "fails to advance an argument for deletion", whether or not there is "disruption". WP:SK#2 gets into "disruption". AfD means "Articles for Deletion" and even here you have not made an argument for deletion. The concept wp:notability is not defined by the existence of articles on Wikipedia or the content of such articles, so it is not possible to make an argument for a notability deletion solely by looking at the Wikipedia article. "Speeky keep" is a procedural closure that does not define notability, and should not be confused with "keep". IMO, "Speedy keep" is a term that would be better changed to "speedy closure". It also appears in the current case that you discovered the removal of the prod and prepared the entire nomination in three minutes. Why do you expect to bind the community into a seven-day discussion when you've provided no evidence of having done the searches and other steps suggested by WP:BEFORE? If you want to appeal to an administrator, Black Kite, T. Canens, Penwhale, and Spartaz might be predisposed to view a restoration of the AfD favorably. A redirect from AfD is not binding on the community, and AfD is not a substitute for discussion on the talk page of the article. For the issue of whether or not redirects at AfD are binding on the community, User:King of Hearts is a knowledgable administrator, and I believe will tell you that administrators do not want AfD to be used to bind them into arbitrating edit wars. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you think "No independent sources, not included in any selective major indexes. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG" does not constitute a valid deletion argument and does not include "BEFORE"????? As for the redirect, you came up with that, not I, I propose deletion. One more time, please revert this inappropriate non-admin closure. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never proposed this for redirection and that is not what I have been talking to you about. I am talking about your incorrect and inappropriate premature (and non-admin) closure of a valid AfD. I am not going to participate in an RFD that should not be necessary to start with. --Randykitty (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also comment on other other point of your above remarks (that are not really overflowing with good faith: I do my homework when I PROD an article. If the PROD then gets removed without a good reason, I copy the PROD reason and use Twinkle to take the article to AFD. When I say "no independent sources", I assume that readers will understand that this implies that such sources have not been found. I could go into a litany of where I didn't find anything, but don't feel that is very productive. You could accuse me of not having followed WP:BEFORE if you had found some easy-to-see sources. All you come up with is WorldCat. Sorry, but I find all this rather insulting. In any case, neither SK#1 nor SK#2 apply here and your closure remains incorrect and inappropriate. And lest you again "misinterpret" my words: what I kindly request from you is that you 1/ revert the redirect of the journal article to the law school and 2/ revert your closure of the AfD and let it run its course. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to step in here. I do believe that the SK criteria were applied improperly: the nominator did advance a policy-based rationale for deletion nomination and saying otherwise shows a lack of good faith as well as a lack of understanding of the guidelines cited in that nomination. And since there was a rationale, this AfD should have run its full course. I hope that I will be able to revert the close and its associated edits; Randykitty, if not, please help me out. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the notice? "Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts"? There's a policy too. If you had made 4 reverts you'd be blocked by now — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is "no, I didn't read the notice" since I've not been edit warring. What I did was make a post on your talk page and asked why you posted here. Unscintillating (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here to second this. You aren't allowed any number of revisions, and even at 2 reverts (even 1 sometimes) people get blocked for edit warring. I'd suggest that you not try that again. gwickwiretalkediting22:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I take the point that part of what I said on Crisco's talk page was erroneous. Why are you responding here? Are you saying I should have taken the other editor to AN3 on the edit that demanded that I start a discussion? That doesn't make sense to me when the third restoration was available to explain the WP:CONSENSUS policy. Unscintillating (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either of you could have started a discussion on the talk page, at any time, and by policy should have tried (which is why both of you were warned). As for replying here, this is where the discussion began. Can't speak for Gwickwire, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now the debate on FPS is closed I wanted to drop a line to thank you for you considered comments, the reflection on others contributions and your support for the article being kept. I was initially disappointed by the cursory judgement displayed by certain editors but was quickly reassured by your pithy criticism of the flaky responses. Best regards. Tmol42 (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Unscintillating,
I didn't express myself well about the subject of Uplace, which is nominated for deletion. The article is more about the controversy about the case instead of WP:CRYSTALBALL. The plans are being put on a hold àfter coaltion problems. The article will be expanded and I will also add multiple sources. Please read the article and perhaps you could revise your decision. --WjI-kop (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who do you think the "user" is who keeps "expanding"? That was in the very first post of the RfC. Sure, close the discussion, while I could refine and extend the record of problems, there is only one person who needs to get a message here. Unscintillating (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's already been closed by another administrator. No-one is getting any "message" here, because you haven't provided one. Please don't waste people's time at WP:AN again if you don't have any evidence to support your claims; it's simply disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant to this, really. Any admin will tell you that if you're going to post a complaint at WP:AN/WP:ANI you really need to back it up with diffs and convincing evidence. or it will go nowhere. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Q. Schmidttalkbackis wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS
Hi mate, hope you understood what I was doing with my edits after this one. I assume you didn't mean to remove my comments while adding yours (especially since you were responding to mine). I used rollback to make it quick but that means you would have received a ping. Cheers mate, Stalwart11108:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I got an edit conflict that reported that I was the only one that had made changes. It didn't make sense, and I see now that I should have done more investigation. Cheers, Unscintillating (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately, you could just agree right now to let it go and stop bringing up my name in a negative context and casting aspersions about me and we could just agree to be adults about it and avoid each other. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it" is unclear? And your edit summary here: receipt of a barnstar is not a reason to delay banning enforcement; what do you mean by it? Please, an explanation would be lovely.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opening a discussion, because I don't care enough. I see you've been chasing this issue for years, which makes me unwilling to get involved. As for the rest, I remember the barnstar. What I'd like to know is what you think it had to do with my edit? Please be explicit.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your talk page and you still have the barnstar posted and you still have posted your reply, diff. Do you think that other editors will see that as there being a connection between you and the banned editor? I thought that the edit was non-controversial, so I'm surprised that you are asking questions. If you reviewed the policy page I directed you to, you know that you are expected to not do what you did, whether or not you had a connection to the banned editor. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read the policy and I don't see how it applies to striking through edits on a closed AfD for an article that's at DRV, which seems incredibly wrong-headed to me. That's your business. If you can't see that doing so is at least problematic, in fact, if you're so blind to the fact that it's problematic that you have to go searching around for some reason why I might have reverted you other than that your edit was problematic, then I suppose I'm not going to convince you of anything. Why didn't you strike or revert the barnstar, eh? Why do you suppose I didn't revert your striking of his remarks on open AfDs, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
== A barnstar for you! ==
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Cheap Trick.jpg|100px]]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Cheap Trick Award'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For having sufficiently deep psychological insight into my character to understand, even without any evidence whatsoever, that my receiving a barnstar from a sockpuppet of a banned editor might be a greater influence on my editing than simple common sense as expressed in my edit summaries. Keep up the good work, and, now that you've received this, consider that you may be accused of proxying for me in the future. — [[User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|alf laylah wa laylah]] ([[User_talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|talk]]) 23:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
|}
Hello. I don't feel able to express an opinion as to whether the first paragraph of WP:NOT42 applies to the draft in your userspace. When I wrote WP:NOT42, WP:42 was very obviously innacurate in a number of ways. The last four bullet points of WP:NOT42 arguably apply to all summaries. James500 (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I was glad to see yesterday your suggestion for merging this article with an existing one about alternative therapies. Unfortunately the original article was deleted today. So I thank you for your comment and also wonder if it is possible to expand the existing alternative therapies article? Or is it too late for "Horstmann" at all?
Thanks Matopotato (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentioned in WP:NGEO, we seem to never be in contact before. Of course, it was only natural to take a look at your user page. And naturally "Russian Bazaar" caught my eye. And naturally, since I've just had come from the notability-related talks, the notability issue caught my eye. Be me more evil, I'd slapped AfD instead of a warning tag. In edit summary you wrote " not apparent that this tag improves the article". Well, if nobody cares about it, well, the community have already convinced me that there is no such thing as inherent notability, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we are in a serious disagreement about the policies. Therefore I requiested WP:THIRD and reported edit warring, since I believe you are violating the policy for addressing tags about requested citations. Initiall I thought you merely demanded edit summaries and detailed explanations. Now I fail to see your point. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I saw you listed on the islands Wikiproject for pacific islands specifically. I'm trying to get Ford Island to FA status and I need to write a bit of geography on it. I can find bare facts but nothing of much substance. Do you know of any resources I can use that might help me out? I've tried the NOAA and USGS already.--v/r - TP19:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my recent dealings with Epeefleche at some of the shopping mall AfD pages and his own talk page, something tells me he's really not interested in actually improving the shopping mall articles (or certain other articles) by looking for references to add to them, but would rather take the easy way out by just nominating them for deletion at will and dismissively brushing off any improvements to the articles by claiming "Non-notability", implying "Primary sources/'non-reliable' sources don't count", etc. His removal of your comments to him at his talk page (twice) without even acknowledging them also tells me that you've made a point to him that he's unwilling to admit to. Creativity-II (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know he was blocked at one point in time, but I've not gone back and researched the issue. I think your comments have complete clarity. I think his antipathy for finding sources also applies to his use of the refimprove tag. However, it is not true that he never looks for sources, which complicates things. Twice in his recent AfD nominations he has found a source to document the size of the mall he was nominating.
I am working right now on Cornwall Centre (Regina, Saskatchewan) where he skipped, as usual, WP:BEFORE D1. The AfD only lasted a week. The first book on the Google Books search was a 14-page book about Cornwall Centre. The news.google.com/newspapers WP:BEFORE D1 search returns a short but in-depth article from Montreal, a source 1,500 miles (2,400 km) away. A search for the topic using the Wikipedia search shows eight articles mentioning the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you had to say at [4] in the light of the current discussion was important and relevant. However he does delete comments occasionaly, but of course that's his prerogative. You may wish to add your experience to this thread instead. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, I stumbled across this edit where you were attempting to ping me. FYI, the "ping" function only works if it is added at the same time and in the same edit as your signature. If you add it later, it does not actually ping the person.That's something I also found out the hard way. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Unscintillating, @MelanieN: "Ping" or Echo notification system will also work if you remove the original timestamp and add it again by typing ~~~~~ five tidles. Cheers,
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gilroy. 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.
I suggest you take a few deep breaths and count to ten. You're pushing the limits of acceptable behavior in the comments you left at Talk:Hellyer County Park. I politely asked you on your talk page to explain your actions; this was not cause to air dirty laundry in public and raise a ruckus. I've seen editors' privileges on Wikipedia suspended for less than what you've already done.
I would also suggest that if you're using Microsoft Internet Explorer to edit on Wikipedia, switch to a standards-compliant browser so that you can see tooltip previews. I don't use IE, since it isn't offered for my operating system, but I understand from reports that it doesn't display tooltip previews, or at least hasn't been capable of it in the past, among its many other deficiencies and shortcomings. Tooltip previews have been available to logged-in users on Wikipedia for a long time, perhaps more than five years now, to make browsing and editing easier. Replacing direct links with redirects breaks that functionality. — QuicksilverT@00:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit of my comment, as the present case is not covered by the exceptions to modifying another editor's comments listed at the Talk page guidelines. If you want to remove that whole thread, starting with your comment where you cast aspersions at the nominator and your fellow editors, that would be good enough for me. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You introduced yourself to me at an AfD, with a comment that had at least the superficial appearance that it was commenting on another user. Since commenting on another user at AfD is specifically identified in the Group Notice as disruptive and WP:NPA, I requested you to assert that you were not commenting on another user. I also explained to you that the reason I wanted to know, was that otherwise your comment was subject to being moved to your talk page, refactored, or deleted. But you declined to so assert, rather you said that your comment was "polite". So at this point we are left that you introduced yourself to me with a polite disruptive personal attack. Nothing you have added since that point in time has moved the discussion. Your offer above to accept my preceding AfD comment as ransom in return for removing your introductory personal attack doesn't work, since the logic in my comment is a comment on content, not a contributor, and is a part of my Keep !vote logic, sorry. I'm also seeing what might be foreshadowing in your comments, that would suggest a plan of continuing escalation. Do you have a plan of continuing escalation? Unscintillating (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Unscintillating: I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Mason (singer) (4th nomination). I closed the deletion discussion for the Matt Mason article (third deletion discussion) on 1 October 2014, at which time the AfD template was removed from the article (see diff page). The article was subsequently nominated for deletion again on the same day (diff). The WP:NPASR no consensus close I performed for the third discussion was correct, as input was inadequate to draw a consensus from. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for the third nomination close to be modified as you have suggested at the fourth nomination discussion. Of note is that the second AfD discussion was also closed as no consensus. NorthAmerica100016:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Unscintillating. You have new messages at Talk:NCH Software. Message added 04:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Good morning, Unscintillating. I just awoke to find your added comments in the pending Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game. Before I say anything else, please let me apologize for any unintended aggravation or confusion I have caused with my attempt to clarify the nomination in light of the concerns you raised in your AfD comment. My intent was not confound your !vote, but to substantively address the concerns you raised in your comment, at a very early stage of the AfD. I have provided a much longer explanation in the AfD itself. That having been said, if no content is being imported verbatim into the parent article from the article to be deleted, is there a reason to prefer a "redirect" outcome for the article rather than a simple deletion? I sincerely want to understand your concerns, and I would be grateful if you would patiently walk me through your concerns in light of the cited WP:MAD. I sincerely want to understand and learn. Thank you -- and again, please accept my apologies for any aggravation I may have caused you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was aware of the meaning in your words, and I avoided relating the levity in your self-referential comment to my comments. (I've always had a fascination for self-referential language, btw.) We may not be that far apart. You will find an extended analysis at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28, which was closed tonight by a non-admin who has posted 25 times on the talk page of the AfD nominator, so it is possible that this DRV close will be contested. Regarding the Chick-fil-A AfD, I've taken a look at the history of this article, and WP:PROMOTION might be a content reason for deletion of the edit history. The 2013 Chick-fil-A article still has future tense, a year after the event. Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, the underlying motivation for these AfDs is that regular season college football games are, with relatively rare exceptions, run-of-the-mill events that generate a lot of routine coverage, but still aren't notable. You're familiar with the applicable guidelines, so I won't insult you by spouting them. The long-standing position of WikiProject College football is to push regular season game content into season articles or rivalry series articles, if it's worth including at all, and only permit stand-alone articles for regular season games that have some historical significance or some importance to the culture and lore of college football. The issue now is educating me regarding your WP:MAD concerns, and seeing if we have a good reason for preserving the editing history for a non-notable college football game -- because if the goal is to preserve maximum editing history by redirecting articles whenever possible, I've got to tell you that's not the way AfD has generally worked in the nearly 400 AfDs in which I have participated: most get deleted with precious little concern regarding their history. Looking forward to your elaboration -- in the mean time, I will review the discussions you linked above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"*Comment A deletion for lack of wp:notability should only occur when there is no suitable target for redirection. Thus the creation of a redirect overturns an AfD that deleted a topic for insufficient wp:notability, and it is then logical that a restoration of the edit history be routine. A corollary is that closes need to identify whether the deletion was for notability, for content, or for both. Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jennifer Ward, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CTV News Channel. 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.
Can I help you with whatever it is you keep bothering Salvidrim about. It's pretty clear he's not liking your talk page messages, and you're starting to border on harassment here. Is there something I can do for you or what? Sergecross73msg me23:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only two notices I've posted in the last month on that user talk page were required by WP:DRV. I did consider alternatives after the obscene word yesterday, but the requirements are specific, and I didn't want to bounds test by trying something different. There is no past history here, just the opposite, he has been helpful, so I think he has been play-acting to brush me off. Nothing really to get worked up about, and I suggest you don't read too much into his play acting. Meanwhile, he has been so busy brushing me off he has missed the point that my questions were sincere, and I still need answers. Unscintillating (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm concerned, because Salv is one of the most civil, calm editors I've come across on the project, and yet you seem to be upsetting him. Which is why I'm asking you paraphrase your request to me, and I'll take care of it. Thanks. Sergecross73msg me00:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your last edit comment includes, "I...wonder how much you're...trying to come to a resolution." I quote from the other editor's talk page,
“
WP:DELREVD states, "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first." On another talk page, I am pinging you to the beginning of a review. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
”
The page with the ping was several man hours of work to prepare. The administrator's response to that ping was to delete my statement, delete log. So the answer to your question is that I have tried to resolve the matter as specified by WP:DELREVD. With this diff, you confirm that you are aware of the first of the two DRVs. Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got Salvidrim's talk page on my watchlist, so yes, I'm aware of your comments on it, but not much else. I still don't understand what you want, or how you're still arguing about it a month later. Break it down simple for me: What is the end result you're asking for? Sergecross73msg me02:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But why? It's already been userfied, correct? By definition, doesn't that show that you can can continue to work on it? And if I'm looking at the right thing, isn't there very little content, no directly used sources, and only one EL? What is the big deal? There's hardly anything there. You'd be better off starting from scratch anyways... Sergecross73msg me15:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what game you're playing here, but just stop it. You have been harassing people and wasting everybody's time over this trivial matter for way too long. The next time I see you posting on this topic anywhere, you will be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. -- RoySmith(talk)13:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. The more I read into it, the more people I see that are baffled by what you are requesting. Its time to drop the stick. Its fine if you want to continue to discuss it with me in the section above, but do not start up anymore new discussions on this. Sergecross73msg me15:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Islands
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Islands for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123(interact) @ 20:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra Vista Mall (5th nomination) 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. – czar18:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandraprabha Vidyapitha, Paksey (2nd nomination)
You said (of me) elsewhere, he/she removed all of the external references from Russell Humphreys.
Well, thanks for the "he/she"! Always good to be cautious, I guess, given the nature of the internet. However, my gender is as indicated by my name.
WRT Mr Humphreys, the external links duplicated what we already had as sources in the body of the article. The exception was the book review, but that's hardly the sort of external source that wikipolicy sees as useful.
What I'm seeing with a lot of these creationists is link promotion for a very small number of sites, and that leads me to enquire just how truly notable are they in the wider world, if the wider world has little to say about them. --Pete (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Wisconsin Green Party, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Don't edit war please.Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking a step back, and not dealing with any Green Party articles right now. But I suggest reporting that guy who keeps reverting you to WP:AN/3RR. I suspect he's also that Namiba guy. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Unscintillating. I'm puzzled as to why you have been "randomly selected" to comment on so many pages. It makes me wonder how random the process is. Biscuittin (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"But WP:plagiarism, which is a serious offense throughout academia, carries no opprobrium at Wikipedia." The text is still in the essay. For now I commented it out. Do you have a suggestion to make it more clear? QuackGuru (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty mystified by your comments here. In my nomination statement, I state that there is "[n]o evidence of real-world notability", so yes, I provide an argument. You link to speedy keep criterion one, which clearly does not apply: "The nominator withdraws the nomination..." - I haven't - "...or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection..." - I provided one - "...perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging..." - I haven't proposed either - "...and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted"- someone else has recommended deletion. You then link to the (rather weird) essay Wikipedia:Insignificance: if you think this topic is "insignificant", then presumably you feel (as that essay says) that it should be deleted, not speedily kept. At least one of us is confused, here, and I'm fairly sure I'm not. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't wikilink "real-world notability", and I don't find references to explain it when I search Wikipedia. I suspect that your meaning is explicitly identified in WP:N as not a concept we use to understand wp:notability, but you could write an essay if you think it needs more attention. As for your assertion that "per nom" along with "not notable" are a deletion argument, see WP:ATA. If you think our policies are "weird", then you can either get the policies changed, or find a Wiki with policies more to your liking. I don't know what you gained by disregarding the process at WP:BEFORE that was recommended to you when you created the AfD. It seems to me that it would save other editors time by preparing the community by following the recommended process.
Again, you appear to be confused. "Real-world notability" refers to "notability in the real world", as opposed to notability in a fictional world (like one of the Transformers universes). That should be moderately clear to anyone fluent in English, so no, I'm not going to "write an essay". I did not assert that "that 'per nom' along with 'not notable' are a deletion argument" (they are, but that's beside the point...), I said that another user had recommended deletion. So, once again, the discussion clearly and explicitly does not meet the speedy keep criteria, which specify that "no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted". You should withdraw your recommendation immediately. I also did not describe a single policy as "weird", I described a badly-written "essay" with an unclear subject as "weird"- and, in any case, if you feel that the topic is "insignificant" as that word is defined in the essay, you should be supporting deletion, not engaging in misguided wikilawyering to have the page "speedy kept". And I did carry out the process at WP:BEFORE; I'm quite sure that no acceptable article about this topic could be created. You have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. Do you have any? And, as for your "It seems to me that it would save other editors time by preparing the community by following the recommended process"- what recommended process is this? The only person wasting time here is you, and it's my time that you're wasting. I assumed that you were a new user, but I see that you are not- I'm really at a loss as to why you are making the claims that you are. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You recently reverted my previous reverting of the addition of a {{tl:cn}} template to the lead of Synge Street CBS in relation to the school's involvement with the Young Scientists. WP:CITELEAD suggest that in uncontroversial cases, which I think this is, we can probably do without citations in the lead where the lead is summarising the content below. I have now started a discussion at Talk:Synge_Street_CBS#The_necessity_for_citations_in_the_lead to try to find a more acceptable wording for the lead that might assuage any reservations you might have. Please pop over and contribute. CalzGuy (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hyder, Alaska. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Adding sources that do not say what is being claimed is tantamount to hoaxing, a form of vandalism. If you honestly believe the sources say this, please address it on the talk page where the issue has already been raised. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After a recent comment I made at an AfD, you took repeated exception because the comment happened to mention WP:BEFORE. I twice cited WP:AVOIDYOU. Then you resumed your WP:AVOIDYOU behavior at another AfD, but there was no need to respond, as you were obviously going to continue to ignore my requests for civility. Subsequently you followed me in succession to eight different discussions. Although I decided to ignore the issue at the time, your edits prior to starting the second AfD for SEASPRAY are relevant, because you removed the only two sources from the article while admitting that you didn't know how they were used to source the article. I've asked additional editors to come to the Hyder article. Unscintillating (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AVOIDYOU doesn't apply here. If YOU are the only one taking the action, YOU are the one I will address directly. And you're misrepresenting the policy. The policy is about discussing editors. I'm discussing your ACTIONS. Discussing the editor would be something along the lines of saying "you're pushing a liberal/conservative agenda", not "you are restoring sources that don't belong". If you truly believe that AVOIDYOU somehow relieves you of the responsibility of discussing your repeated restoration of sources that don't say what you're claiming, then I strongly encourage you to open a discussion at ANI and we'll see what happens there. Oh, BTW, I've commented at, and opened, several AfD, not just ones you're involved in. Also, I've commented at hundreds, if not thousands, of other AfD's over the years. So spare me.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRESERVE doesn't say to leave unsourced material in articles. It plainly states: "...if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research." See WP:PROVEIT: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Use a reliable source that actually says it, or stop vandalizing the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if John Pack Lambert didn't read the appropriate stuff, he's been running through all the pageant articles showering AFDs like candy with little appreciation for the content of each article or its merits - as evidenced by describing people with the wrong details in his AFD comments, ignoring the sourcing on the articles etc. Has thoroughly turned me off editing on here. PageantUpdater (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.
Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here
The reason why you're editing restriction proposal on Jpl didn't work is because (a) it was a bit harsh (b) too long and (c) had too many restrictions, semantics and criteria. Next time (and I assume there might be a next time), it should be a bit more pliable and less wordy. Pwolit iets (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion at AfD is in error under WP:BEFORE C1 and C3. C1 says that if the article can be fixed through normal editing (like my rewrite), then it is not a candidate for AfD. C3 said the article should be tagged with {{advert}} so readers are aware of the problem and can act to remedy it; this was not done. Cunard (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but it's not an issue, as the version being discussed for deletion was significantly different from the one I speedy deleted as an attack page. I was aware of the discussion and decided not to contribute. Deb (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not edit closed AfDs, not even to strike through comments by blocked editors. This creates the mistaken impression that the closing admin closed the discussion in the state after your edits. Sandstein 16:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any clear policy on this? Because I for one would certainly support the striking through. As the annotation was clearly dated, it's clear enough that this took place after the closure - although noting that could be useful too. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To which "this" are you referring? WP:Banning policy has empowered reverts for a long time. My awareness of this in WP:Blocking policy came later. More recently, there is text at WP:TPG for using strikethrough, but it has yet to get the details right. I also discovered an essay a couple of weeks ago, which contains WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Generally, it is my opinion that the strikethrough in AfD is long-established practice. There was a point in time where I tried using both strikethrough and small font, but it made the resulting text too hard to read. As more and more of these AfD edits get marked, it slowly shows how AfDs have been influenced by blocked or banned editors. Unscintillating (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That date is a signature made using five tildes. Checking at WP:Signatures, I see that WP:Signatures is a behavioral guideline stating that signatures are required on talk pages. I'm fine with using the four tildes if there would be a reason to do so, but after trying other styles, I find that the date stamp provides exact information to identify the author of the post in the edit history, and as a wikiGnome edit less clutter on the Project Page. Unscintillating (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all you did for this project in 2016, Unscintillating. May your house be safe, and may you and those privileged with your company enjoy good health in a
Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.
I just wanted to say that, despite disagreeing with you on some of the pageant notability issue, I respect your contributions and your arguments for preserving these articles. Best Wishes for 2017. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)22:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about not adding edit description, I changed my mind after I clicked minor edit. I removed the section on their claims to be granted authority by the state of Louisiana, in fact they were merely granted exemption to operate. Super (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your message puts me in a bind, as I am currently limited at Talk:List of symphony orchestras in the United States from adding any citations or templates under accusation of WP:POINT; and a statement to me from an uninvolved admin that, "So I hope no one tries to go down that road, which would be sanction worthy regardless of who is 'right' about whether inline citations should be included here." On 11 February on the Talk page I stated,
“
In balance, I don't dispute your point that it would seem in this case that any references at all, even the previous existence of a deleted article, should be evidence of references. But this view goes back to the point that, why are we trying to find exceptions so as to remove references? WP:V is a core content policy. Why remove policy-compliant functioning citations?
”
So while I was willing to consider exceptions, the RfC has provided the sense of the community that exceptions for this topic are not now on the table. Had the community wanted to move forward with the exceptions idea for elementary lists, there would now be no need to try to get citations restored. Whatever the path forward here, your demands that I will be disruptive if I don't defy the two admins is not constructive. You are demanding attention in the form that I did not enact your suggestion. I have no objection to your proposal. There was also a good suggestion of using manual footnotes, and the suggestion to repair the language about "notable". Unscintillating (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that WP:Deletion policy specifies that content discussion takes place on the talk page of the article, and that the DRV process requires discussion with the closing admin before initiating a DRV process? So do you want to explain why I am suddenly going to violate both WP:Deletion policy and WP:Deletion review procedures in one swift edit that leaves you wanting to reply? Unscintillating (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Hello Unscintillating. Thank you very much for your effort in entering the discussion on the mathematics section of the Microsoft Hearts article. I agree with your view expressed in Talk:Microsoft Hearts#Mathematics. As things stand Jasper Deng has deleted the complete section. I believe his action is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. He also appears to hold self-contradicting views. I have attempted, in a pleasant way, to convince him to reconsider his action but he appears intransigent.
Incidentally, the win rate percentage idea was introduced by me. I originally claimed a good player could achieve a 56% win rate. My personal win rate is 56% over a run of more than 7000 games. I have tried some experimentation during this run so I believe that a good player, without experimentation, playing 100 games (ie a statistically significant sample size), may be able to achieve >56%. However, as I also originally claimed, it appears difficult to get much above this rate. Someone else edited my percentage to read 60%+. This figure is unverified. I introduced the win rate idea mainly to invite discussion of the theoretical optimum which I would love to see someone calculate.
Anyway, I think the mathematics discussion is a beautiful little piece of writing by all contributors and adds significantly to the article.
I am not Wiki literate, so I feel at a distinct disadvantage in getting this section re-instated. I hope you can help. How can we reinstate the section? :-)Lynton1 (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! You have reinstated the section - albeit in an abbreviated form - but that's OK - maybe I'll try editing it again in a couple of days :-). Muchas Gracias, amigo. You're the man!Lynton1 (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a mistake to move the article Holly Neher to draft at this time. The second AFD discussion is in full swing and the move now appears disruptive. Also, I don't understand why you want to wait until November. I'd like to see you move the article back at least for now. If you have a reason for the move, please let me know as I've been wrong before..--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments like this and this are not going to win you many friends. Either put up or shut up. I'm sure you're very nice, but with comments like these, you are coming across as a bit of prat. CassiantoTalk23:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Careful Cassianto or else you'll be sent to the Ministry of Love too. You don't want to use the word "prat" in front of the thought police; that's not in our vocabulary. Such a dirty descriptor you no good disenter, especially if it's in the best interest of a fellow editor. But in all seriousness, Unscintillating just take the advice he offered. It's no fun around here if you lose friends.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGracefulSlick: Welcome. Glad you are having fun with your friends on our social website. Are you still enjoying the picture of the enema bag on WT:TPG? I'm not. I've not posted there again. As for the advice above, the advice was to put up or shut up. You seem eager to insert yourself into incivility disputes on the side of incivility. I don't suggest it, but do you want to be listed as a party to the Arbcom case? It will mean there is a clear reason to include the WT:TPG ANI incident in the case. Don't underestimate how deep and long-running this problem is. Arbcom has a goal to break the back of long-running problems. Case after case Arbcom adds notes to say that they are on the side of civility, yet incident after incident, the incivility enablers defend the uncivil at ANI.Again, please let me know if you want to be a party to the case. Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it again, just in case you missed it above. Yes, take me to Arbcom. It's what I want; it's what we all want. Put your money where your mouth is and just do it. I really don't see why you are trying to labour this? You're not doing a very good job of proving me wrong when it comes to your prattish behaviour. CassiantoTalk06:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the third or fourth person you have threatened to take to Arbcom? If we're bringing up an image with a humorous quip from September into it, you'll probably be including even more editors. Sounds like we're having quite a party. Sure, add me to the VIP list. Just remember, I'm also at least the third editor who told you it is a terrible idea to go to Arbcom. And here is a useful segment from WP:NPA: "Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wik".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not looking for editors to take to Arbcom, as the best number would be zero. But I also knew that if they wanted to defend the incivility at TPG, they would have to accept being a party to the case. But I doubt you are doing this to defend the incivility at TPG. So why are you agreeing to this?
Filing complaints at RFAR for minor dissatisfactions and frustrations is a common move from angry newcomers, naturally enough, as they don't know what arbitration is for. I'm astonished to see an editor of your experience threatening it, Unscintillating. I won't perpetuate the derailing of the Holly Neher AfD by responding to you there, but no, of course I wasn't there in my role as admin. The question is an odd one. Did you see me intimate any admin action against Paulmcdonald, either before or after I was asked to block him? Bishonen | talk07:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not so sure that an arbcom would be quite the exercise in futility/guaranteed boomerang that is being suggested above. But agree that this editor should act and not threaten if he is so inclined. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my suggestion is that you stop talking about going to arbcom, and that you neither be goaded into taking such a step nor intimidated or bullied into not doing so. You also might want to consider "hatting" or deleting discussions such as this that serve no useful purpose. Just a friendly suggestion, your mileage may differ. Coretheapple (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, is there a reason why you pinged me at ANI, knowing full well I've been asked not to comment on "thou subject that shall not be mentioned"? How's your ARBCOM report going? Did you loose your way? Only you ended up at ANI. I'm still waiting for for this mythical report your going to file against me, and others, for daring to challenge your opinion and my kind advice to you with regards to your behaviour? If you're not going to, no worries; just a quick apology would suffice for making such unwarranted threats, and then we can all go about our business. I'll be up for a few hours yet... CassiantoTalk19:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned your username in a request that you be blocked for one week. Is that what you are calling an unreasonable ping? I am not aware that you've been asked not to comment. Do you have diffs? Seems that would have been something relevant for the AN discussion. On the other hand, the AN discussion was closed, and the closing included the statement, "...(Cassianto) has not replied but also has not further edited the AFD. If Cassianto's behaviour in the AFD becomes an issue, then it can be brought back up. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)". As for my "threats", unwarranted or otherwise, please provide diffs, as there might be other explanations. I am also pinging @Primefac: so that he is aware of your most recent post here. Unscintillating (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: Drmies politely asked me to comment no further at "thou subject that shall not be mentioned". I don't know why he did, but I adhered to it. Now, maybe you asnswer my concerns: Firstly, you can alert who you want, I couldn't give a fuck, but you should really explain to me why you want to take me to ARBCOM and are then asking for a week's block at ANI. What would you want me blocked for a whole week for? Could I, now, please have a diff of my behaviour with regards to blockable evidence? As you can see, blocks don't concern me, and never have as I consider this website to need me more than I need it. But I am genuinely confused about why you want me blocked? I went against you at "thou subject that shall not be mentioned" and indicated to you that the way you were behaving, by threatening all and sundry with Arb reports because they disagreed with you, was prattish behaviour. Aside from those, and my comment here, I don't know you from Adam. Now, take me to ARBCOM, or provide blockable diffs, or apologise for making unwarranted threats. It's really very simple and should be easy for someone with seven years editing experience to understand. CassiantoTalk21:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The diff from your talk page does not show you agreeing to anything, [7]. The diff you provided invites you to discontinue your participation at the AfD, but says nothing about your participation at the AN discussion. So you have no diffs to show that you agreed to stop discussing anything, and no one would have requested that you not participate at the AN discussion.
As for a diff of your behavior, you agreed in the diff I provided at AN that you engaged in name calling. There were no requests for additional diffs. If you want to provide additional diffs of your incivility, you can post them here.You've now been warned at AN, "...(Cassianto) has not replied but also has not further edited the AFD. If Cassianto's behaviour in the AFD becomes an issue, then it can be brought back up.", which is reason for you to continue on the path of civility. Unscintillating (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "yes" was a "yes" to take me to ARBCOM, for whatever reason. Saying that you were "coming across as a prat" is not name calling. It is a personal perception based upon your hostile, threatening, and troublesome behaviour. I am desperate for you to put your money where your mouth and take me to Arbcom, and if that means admitting to something I have not done, just so you can go to ARBCOM and make yourself look like the prat you are coming across as, then so be it. Now, can you either take me to ARBCOM, supply diffs that show me name calling, or if you can't do either, then can you please apologise for making these threats and unfounded allegations against me? Thank you. CassiantoTalk09:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Unscintillating: Thanks for your ongoing efforts to improve Wikipedia. Per your editing interests, you may be interested in the new WP:EAGER essay I created today. Have a good one, North America100019:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help with sourcing for the article on John Renna, I am on holiday and do not have access to newspapers.com, or even a standard keyboard. I just spent the last 10 minutes trying to find square brackets on the keyboard. --RAN (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use SPI as a forum for dispute resolution, particularly when that dispute does not involve the editor accused of sockpuppetry. Your exchange of comment with Rusf10 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bernice McCullers is not relevant to determining whether or not Bernice McCullers has misused multiple accounts, so I have removed it. Please settle your differences with Rusf10 elsewhere, ideally here or on their talk page. Regards. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg (4th nomination) into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schlossberg. There were two recommendations from editors other than the nominator that were moved. The nominator's comments in the former were identical, word for word, to their comments in the latter, except there were additional comments in the latter. As such, nothing was moved from the nominator's comments. I've turned the former nomination into a redirect to the latter, and I've edited all pages that transcluded the former to point to the latter. If you see anything else that needs to be done, have at it or let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 400.3 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. ∰Bellezzasolo✡Discuss12:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Pro-life#arbitrary_rm_break_5's talk page.
Template:Banning-enforcement undermining has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. I restored so that it can be discussed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at WCKS (college radio), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been warned before on this, if you remove the {{dubious}} templates from the WCKS (college radio) page again, you will be reported and blocked. You have been warned previously and yet you continue. This is your final warning. Please stop now. Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC) 04:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to John Hartnett (physicist), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. If you want to know why the notability tag applies, then read Talk:John Hartnett (physicist)#Notability (which has been there since before you removed the template the first time) instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm gwickwiretalkediting 23:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
All good! Stalwart111 00:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
User:Unscintillating/Mason Brown, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Unscintillating/Mason Brown and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Unscintillating/Mason Brown during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandraprabha Vidyapitha, Paksey (2nd nomination). Thanks. Worldbruce (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Wisconsin Green Party, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Don't edit war please. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hyder, Alaska. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Adding sources that do not say what is being claimed is tantamount to hoaxing, a form of vandalism. If you honestly believe the sources say this, please address it on the talk page where the issue has already been raised. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
