"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.

I just accidentally recreated Category:Streets in San Antonio, Texas that you closed per my nomination a couple minutes ago. Can you re-delete that for me or do I need to formally nominate if for speedy deletion? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!RevelationDirect (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recollect you being involved before on this topic. Must we can go through yet another deletion debate, or accept that a template with an English version of the name and substantially the same content is the same as a template with the Arabic word for Province? Legacypac (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put this up for CSD, because the text of the draft text is identical to the content of the similarly named template.

It was pointed out that the Template (which I boldy moved) was serving as a Common passage. Owing to limitations in mediwiki you can't as I understood directly transclude pages. The intention in the move was that the content in the Draft would eventually become an article. I had subst the uses of the template, but was reverted.

I've compared the text and references, and can't find any susbstantial differences between the actual content of the Temmplate (minus process tags) and the Draft (again discounting process tags.).

Given what the other contributors to the talk page and the creator of the Template have said, I don't see any objection to removing what is now in effect a duplicate. If you feel it isn't speedy, then maybe it's time for an MfD? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should merge this report :Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Legal threat with this recent one, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threats at Satyananda Saraswati. Placing both in ANI would work. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned switching your vote to keep if a second reliable source was found for the Killing of Dave Oren Ward article.

Here it is from July 1999 in The Advocate:

https://books.google.com/books?id=qWQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=dave+oren+ward+los+angeles+times&source=bl&ots=kGnC1adEik&sig=ZQT6ZBnneNQq9prqZzmIiaPfe9o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3ZunVIbfDYLYoATX7YKYBw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=dave%20oren%20ward%20los%20angeles%20times&f=false

Thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you doing? Why would you you delete it? Please undo the deletion, because there is no justification for the move.--Yankees10 00:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

College football players can be notable as long as they pass GNG, which a simple google search along with the references that were on the article, suggests Oakman does. This is not under any circumstance, a candidate for speedy deletion. So please, undelete it and nominate for deletion if you wish. Otherwise this screams you abusing your admin powers.--Yankees10 00:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were provided already. Undelete the article, nominate it for deletion and see what others think. I'm honestly considering reporting you, because this is ridiculous. What gives you the right to decide alone who gets an article and who doesn't?--Yankees10 01:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] This is PLENTY of sources to pass GNG. What are you not getting here? And no admins certainly do not just delete articles with this amount of sources without a discussion first.--Yankees10 01:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So based on your rationalization, no college football players are notable. Because guess what, this is the exactl coverage every single college football player with an article gets. I cannot believe your stubbornness to not just un-delete the article and AFD. Even if you do not believe he is notable, there is enough coverage here for others to help decide. There is not one logical reason why you are the lone person here to make this decision.--Yankees10 01:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. If a player has enough coverage to pass GNG they are most certainly notable enough for an article under most circumstances.--Yankees10 02:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, i'm done. It's clear you have no intention of reverting the deletion. NEVER have I encountered a case like this on Wikipedia where the admin is this unbelievably stubborn and has show this much abuse of his "powers". This is not your own personal encyclopedia, nowhere does it give you the right to decide who and who doesn't deserve to have an article. This was not a short one-sentence article, nor was it vandalism in which the deletion would be 100% justified. This was an decently sized article with sources provided, created by a user with both a long tenure here on Wikipedia and a lengthy history of creating articles. I'll repeat again, an AFD would have been the most logical choice to handle a deletion. I cannot fathom why one would believe this is would not be the best course of action. Just because I couldn't find these sources you seemed to be looking for, doesn't mean they don't exist. An AFD would clearly allow others to help find these.--Yankees10 02:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, I'd be interested to hear how this article was possibly a candidate for CSD A7? Yes he's non-notable, but importance was implied. "It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied." @Yankees10:. GiantSnowman 10:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not being notable is not the same as not indicating importance, as A7 makes very clear - "it is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied." GiantSnowman 17:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the deletion and move. BMK (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shawn Oakman. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Yankees10 02:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

It appears you have closed the TfD of {{Sectionlink}} and {{Link section}} with delete but have not carried out the actual deletion.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that kind of problem looks like my line of work. I'll take a look.

In the mean time, there is a {{Being deleted}} tag.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this could take a while but we are definitely way past the point no return. You can delete its documentation and other subpages if you wish. Actually, please do; the less noise I have on my dashboard, the better.

I will tackle the article namespace first, where the work is most delicate and complex. (Believe me.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for undoing my speedy tag with this edit: I grossly misread the tag's meaning, and tagging that article was a mistake. My apologies, and happy editing! Sock (tock talk) 12:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Andcarr (talk · contribs), whom you recently blocked for disruption at David Ross (businessman), may now be editing while logged out and thus evading their block. - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush paranoia has caused Andcarr to be unfairly blocked for another two days. Judge jury and executioner. (Saskia2309 (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Here is a set of talk pages that were made by user:Ser Amantio di Nicolao to add the nrhp wikiproject at about the same time that you were moving the articles to user space. Now they are talk pages with no articles. I bumped into them going through the unassessed NRHP articles list. What is the best way to clean that up? Move the talk page as well? Ask for deletion?

• Talk:Terre_Haute_Fire_Station_No._8
• Talk:Wright_Hotel
• Talk:Fire_Station_No._9_(Terre_Haute,_Indiana)
• Talk:Hoosier_Theater Generic1139 (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Generic1139 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey; I nominated File:GoogleInfobox.tiff for deletion, with the rationale that "The Wikipedia namespace is not a valid place to use non-free images", and you declined it stating that this was an invalid rationale. The WP:NFCC policy notes that "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace", and that non-free images must be used in at least one article, so I'm curious as to why its exclusive use in the Wikipedia namespace is not a valid reason for deletion. As you note, the image says it's to be used to illustrate an article, and it was - but I removed that inclusion because I felt that it constituted an unacceptable conflict of interest on the part of the inserter, so.. Ironholds (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that it's a conflict of interest case. If he's willing to be a subject to show what it looks like in the Knowledge Graph article, why not include it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because we could include, say, a KG entry of someone dead perfectly trivially and avoid any worries here? My worry is simply (and I appreciate that this is not what the user intends) that the inclusion of the image can constitute exactly the same thing as KnowledgeGraph's existence constitutes - an additional venue and driver for traffic. In that case we should absolutely avoid signing off on personX deciding that personX should exclusively benefit from this traffic. Pick Sartre or de Beauvoir or JSM or someone similarly shuffled off this mortal coil. Ironholds (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SO, I got the little message about a possibly unfree file for a piece of coal scrip at Killarney, West Virginia...I responded and since the town and the maker of the scrip have disappeared since the 50's.......it would be great if another human being could take a peek..... [here]. I did indeed perform a patent search, SURPRISE...none to be found...Coal town guy (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the input, I have posted the results of a thorough copy right and patent search for the item after 10 powered loup inspectionCoal town guy (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your help, it is now on commons, and wanted to say thanks...Sadly my knee will possibly be deleted, walking, a long time hobby of mine..Coal town guy (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:FraudBustersTeam requested an unblock on UTRS. Are you okay with me unblocking the account, under the conditions that it's renamed to User:Treestop999 and only one individual will use it, the rest needing to create their own? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On the 5th, you deleted Template:Sectionlink after some discussion. That template allowed convenient linking to a section of an article from its Talk page, and I’m not aware of any similar template (despite some claiming redundancy). Am I mistaken? Or would you consider reinstating the template (or possibly merging its Talk page functionality with {{section link}})? Thank you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I got the impression from the TFDs that sectionlink, and the other templates too, were rather redundant to section link. I'm not familiar with any of them, partly as I link sections with the basic text, e.g. Kenyon College#Traditions, and not with a template. You'll note that all of the relevant titles were recreated as redirects after you left this message, so it's possible that the problem's no longer a problem. I'm sorry if this message isn't helpful; I'm basically trying to say "I don't know the answer to your question". Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 10. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 174.141.182.82 (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is brilliant. I wish I could explain things like that. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if someone cites The Story of the Jews: Finding the Words: 1000 BC-1492 AD, the era designation should not be changed to BCE and CE, but this isn't because it's a citation, it's because it's a title. But if one were citing Trajan's Column one would be free to give the publication (that is, completion) date as AD 113, rather than presenting the date as it appears in the original: "IMP·CAESARI·DIVI·NERVAE·F·NERVAE TRAIANO·AVG·GERM·DACICO·PONTIF MAXIMO·TRIB·POT·XVII·IMP·VI·COS·VI·P·P" Jc3s5h (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question:

Thanks for the clarification. However, I'm not yet completely clear. Take an imaginary example, <ref>Scribe, Unknown. Ancient Text. Sumer: Scribes Incorporated, 1999 BC.</ref> Are you addressing a situation where someone changes 1999 BC to 1999 BCE? Nyttend backup (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I am addressing the question of someone changing 1999 BC to 1999 BCE. Of course, the original author would not have dated a publication 1999 BC. But a modern reproduction might contain an introduction that gives the publication date as "1999 BC". The original year is sometimes given in citations (if using templates, |origyear= can be used). Your edit would suggest that the original year would have to be written as "1999 BC" in Wikipedia because that's how it's given in the publication. But in fact, publication dates follow the citation style of the article, not the format contained in the publication being cited. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per this diff, why is it that this week we are putting city and state in different links instead of just one link? Seems like this is always getting switched back and forth. Did the guidelines change, or what? (Always curious to know what's behind thewikignoming...) Just curious, Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 10:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I usually DO watchlist people's talk if I've posted there, so OK to reply here as well. Montanabw^(talk) 19:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official policy. Since policy follows process and grows out of common practice, it indeed is important to see what we generally do in this kind of situation. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a different editor is editing a bunch of articles in precisely the opposite direction. So, is there any guideline one way or the other or is this just an ongoing edit war? Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor is editing against community practice. Some people just focus on creating the Wikipedia:Manual of Style to shape their whims of what should be; the problem with so many of these people is that they dream up rules at variance with what the community actually does, and when ordinary editors object, they attempt to take the high ground of "this is what the Manual of Style says". Never mind that they're a small subset of the community; never mind that community standards flow from community practice; never mind that their rules don't even match real life in many ways (e.g. the thoroughly unhelpful insistence on dashes instead of hyphens; I was in my final year of grad school when I first encountered a book that followed WP:MOS standards on those) — they develop the style, and everyone else must follow it. I prefer to focus on writing an encyclopedia for the readers, not for those obsessed with WP:MOS. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on one hand, I agree that the MOS is a POV-pushing battleground. However, I really think that your style if overlinking. Anyone wanting to learn about the state of New York from a link to New York City, can click a second link. And the links to the city articles should all name the state and the nation, so United States is totally unneeded. Seems something not worth edit-warring over, but I really don't like a sea of blue, and for me, I really hate consecutive blue links to different articles, my eyes are not as young as they once were. JMO Montanabw^(talk) 00:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this is in New Galilee (the potato place), rather than New Caliliee, Pennsylvania as is written on the card. Any input? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One additional piece of info, at the top of the gable on the postcard is a painted inscription (?) "1st UP Church built 1870" The guy who wrote the info on the bottom of the postcard obviously wasn't very careful. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted our organization's page, and I'm not sure why. Could you help me understand and/or please reinstate the page? There are many, many secondary sources available to support the notability of our organization, as per Wikipedia requirements. I'm more than happy to provide you with a list of these. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollybrowne1981 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Literally the only contents were Jasper Hill Farm is an artisan cheesemaker in Greensboro, Vermont. It is run by Andy and Mateo Kehler. That's nowhere near enough for an article; authors have to show that organisations are at least somewhat significant. If you want to do this, you have two choices: either you can start from scratch, or I can restore it and userfy it, i.e. moving it to a page in your userspace. I don't care which one you pick, but I'll be happy to help either way. Nyttend (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-store the page and userfy it. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollybrowne1981 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at WP:MR to which you may be associated with. The thread can be found here. Thanks. Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using WP:AN for AfD closures for at least 2 years now. Has the policy now changed? LibStar (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help previously with the Tony Blinken page. I've finally had a chance to make some revisions to the Career section, and include better sourcing for that part of his bio. Would you mind taking a look over at Talk:Tony Blinken? Thanks again for all your help in this process! (Bgluckman (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

So why does this page display the photo as copyrighted ("Foto Direitos reservados")? SLBedit (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At first it doesn't like the same photo (slight different angle and black and white) but if you notice the person at left, behind the team, it tells the photo or screenshot was took at the same time. Very suspicious. The photo/screenshot was also uploaded by a user that uploaded multiple files deleted for copyright violation in Wikimedia Commons. Also suspicious. Please see commons:User talk:Lulzone. SLBedit (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found another copyrighted image uploaded by Lulzone. SLBedit (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the photo's date is unknown. If date is unknown how can we find out? If the user took the photo, user should have added it, right? SLBedit (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. My bet is that it is a scan from a book which isn't in the public domain. Only if I knew which book is... SLBedit (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the exactly same photo. The website says it's from the "Archiv". Their archive? SLBedit (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend, regarding your edit, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Later Sui Empire and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Later Sui Empire for evidence. The same user has been repeatedly creating the hoax article with phoney sources. There is no such thing as the Later Sui Empire. -Zanhe (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for acting so quickly! Have a good weekend. -Zanhe (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got several in process, I'll update your list and the map when I've got them all uploaded in another day or so. I think it includes McDonald, Midway, Smith, Mt Pleasant, Green Hills, Ellsworth, Cokeburg. Generic1139 (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be colliding on the Washington map, but at least the one I loaded over yours is the same and both are correct. We had a regression error back in December. Generic1139 (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:Allegheny PA municipalities without photos.png You used your map from Dec 2 2014 as the base for your removal of McDonald on Jan 28 2015, overwriting and losing the information from my removal of six uploaded on Dec 9. As this is a project in your user space, I'm happy to let you maintain the maps. Let me know how you'd like to handle this in the future. Generic1139 (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please consider reversing your closure of those screenshot FFDs? I don't think your suggestion of taking them to NFCR instead is the best here: based on the experience of hundreds of earlier cases of episode screenshots, the only thing that can cause this kind of item to be kept is if somebody brings forward an individual case about why a specific image is actually needed. The whole point of NFC enforcement for TV images is that they have to be looked at individually, if they are to be kept. That's why a lump nomination at NFCR would be of little use; once anybody were to start defending some item or other, it would have to be split up again anyway. On the other hand, the fact that the nominations are all alike doesn't make them invalid: they all point to the same problem, the absence of an individualized justification; that problem can indeed be validly stated in identical words. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the best route. Having decided that these need to go, the nominator has decided to enforce his decision by making it much harder for people to participate. This is especially insidious because several of them are used in featured articles — you'd never know this from the identical nominations, so the nominator either hasn't considered or has considered but didn't bother to mention the fact that FAs cannot be promoted with copyright problems. Quite clearly the nominator's attempting to get all of these deleted as a batch, so the only way to do that while being fair to would-be participants is to get them all considered together as a batch nomination. I'm not opposed to allowing people to look at them individually, but that's not going to be practical unless we have just one or a few at FFD at any given time. Perhaps I suggested the wrong place; I thought NFCR was for when people are trying to decide whether a certain class of image is appropriate. Please take these to such a page, if you feel like doing it yourself, or suggest to me such a place, so I can correct my closure rationale. Finally, be aware that I'll be on the road most of today (it's just dawn now, and I'll not be back online until after sunset), so I cannot quickly respond to anything you say. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is new build version which I do develop and different form former similiar version of it. This version is not mangled, not vandal and not Hoax. Because, the article uses authentic text and legal books as listed at the article references section. The chinese used there can be read at online ctext.org which legally title of document. Why do the deletion? Please restore and undelete the page if you can?

ADHZ07111989 (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up: I presume that you meant to blacklist with a \b in front, I have added two missing b's (though I don't think that this broke anything, it likely did not work). Can you please check this? Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A very belted response to your comment; I've added the male pronoun "he". A better solution would be a gender indicator in the infobox, which could be populated from Wikidata. See the infobox on my user page for how it could appear. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Fact-finding point 1.1 in the original case makes it clear, even for those who don't remember the original case, that the case arose from disputes over whether articles should have infoboxes." - Well, not so clear, the case arose from too many infoboxes being reverted without a dispute (about 60, I made a list). Project opera introduced an infobox for operas then (including a self-portrait of the designer at the bottom), which didn't find approval by some members, leading to disputes such as Rigoletto (archived). All this could be history as you see. - Fact-finding stayed limited, example pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend. I see that you de-listed [9] this user from WP:UAA. If you look through the userpage, this refers to a group of people, not the single deceased subject. I think this still qualifies as WP:GROUPNAME and WP:ISU. --Drm310 (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd love to help where I can! I've been meaning to do this kind of thing more anyway, and some of the infobox photos for Lehigh Valley municipalities have come from me already, such as Williams Township, Forks Township and Nazareth, Pennsylvania. I can primarily help in Lehigh and Northampton counties, though when I go to other nearby counties in the state I'll keep an eye on the list of municipalities lacking photos. I'm not sure the next time I'll be around the 9 Northampton County towns or 1 Lehigh County town on that list, but next time I am, I'll take some photos for sure. I think trying to get one photo for each municipality statewide is an excellent initiative and I'm glad you're taking it on! — Hunter Kahn 22:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My G4 request for this category was based on the hatnote located at Category:Wikipedians interested in music that such categories will be speedily deleted for any music artist not just ones from that original discussion in 2007. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm Peachywink the person who tagged the article Got7 awards and nominations for deletion. The page has since been wiped clean by other users and redirects now to the main Got7 article. Anyways when you deleted the tag for speedy deletion you asked a question in your edit summary. "Do you seriously think that this revision, after all the edits this page has gotten, is identical to anything previously deleted?" Firstly, the actual Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion that it was being it was being deleted under, G4, states the page only need be a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy. The new article had changed none of the reasons the article before was deleted, the only difference I could find was the info box was only half finished this time. Most of the edits done on the page were not done to improve the page but were mostly edit wars. The article did not ammend any of the resons it was deleted before so I do feel it was in essence identical to the previous page. But if you disagree don't worry, this was the third time this month this page has been removed, and I'm sure it will be back again. Thank you.Peachywink (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying, I am actually a fairly new editor so I am still learning some things. After reading your reply and thinking about it I realize what I had thought of before as being deletes was actually other editors removing everything on the page and inserting a redirect to the main article. Which they probably felt they had to do since the editors wanting to keep the page never use talk. So the article keeps getting blanked and redirected not deleted. Next time it shows up I'll submit it for first deletion. Thank you!Peachywink (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at ANI for a currently active admin and I saw you.

Can you please revdel personal information brought to the Wright brothers talk page by Special:Contributions/70.83.24.148? The IP might need to be blocked as well. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who say the article is hoax?

Later Sui Empire (dominating usurp during 1418-1644) is new developed. The article is new build version which I do develop and different form former similiar version of it. This version is not mangled, not vandal and not Hoax. Because, the article uses authentic text and legal books as listed at the article references section. The chinese used there can be read at online ctext.org which legally title of document. Why do the deletion? Please restore and undelete the page. And why do you blocked me? ADHZ07111989 (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will you give me permission to re create the article “Later Sui Empire (dominating usurp during 1418-1644)”? Or maybe please help me build the article ”Later Sui Empire (dominating usurp during 1418-1644)”?

Attention please. The references for Later Sui Empire are:

References

   *Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.
   *梁惠王章句上 page 6
   *西遊記 part 朱紫國唐僧論前世　孫行者施為三折肱
   *廣韻 Part 上平聲 Bab 支 Lineage 隨
   *廣韻 part 上平聲 Domain 脂 Title 伊
   *太平御覽,人事部五十六,《孝女》
   *《草木四》 Part 《叙牡丹》 Page 1
   *之 Part 葘
   *Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.
   *Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.
   Hawley, Samuel (2005). The Imjin War. Japan's Sixteenth-Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China. Seoul: The Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch. pp. 195f. ISBN 89-954424-2-5.
   Turnbull, Stephen (2002). Samurai Invasion. Japan’s Korean War 1592–98. London: Cassell & Co. p. 244. ISBN 0-304-35948-3.
   Roh, Young-koo (2004). "Yi Sun-shin, an Admiral Who Became a Myth". The Review of Korean Studies 7 (3): 13.
   *鬼三十五 Part 《浮梁張令》
   *Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.

The online version of references can you read at ctext.org, as follow:

   *梁惠王章句上 page 6

夫，音扶。浡，音勃。由當作猶，古字借用。後多放此。周七八月，夏五六月也。油然，雲盛貌。沛然，雨盛貌。浡然，興起貌。禦，禁止也。人牧，謂牧民之君也。領，頸也。蓋好生惡死，人心所同。故人君不嗜殺人，則天下悅而歸之。蘇氏曰：「孟子之言，非苟為大而已。然不深原其意而詳究其實，未有不以為迂者矣。予觀孟子以來，自漢高祖及光武及唐太宗及我太祖皇帝，能一天下者四君，皆以不嗜殺人致之。其餘殺人愈多而天下愈亂。秦晉及隋，力能合之，而好殺不已，故或合而復分，或遂以亡國。孟子之言，豈偶然而已哉？

   *西遊記 part 朱紫國唐僧論前世　孫行者施為三折肱

三皇治世，五帝分倫。堯舜正位，禹湯安民。成周子眾，各立乾坤。倚強欺弱，分國稱君。邦君十八，分野邊塵。後成十二，宇宙安淳。因無車馬，卻又相吞。七雄爭勝，六國歸秦。天生魯沛，各懷不仁。江山屬漢，約法欽遵。漢歸司馬，晉又紛紜。南北十二，宋齊梁陳。列祖相繼，大隋紹真。賞花無道，塗炭多民。我王李氏，國號唐君。高祖晏駕，當今世民。河清海晏，大德寬仁。茲因長安城北，有個怪水龍神，刻減甘雨，應該損身。夜間託夢，告王救迍。王言准赦，早召賢臣。款留殿內，慢把棋輪。時當日午，那賢臣夢斬龍身。

   *廣韻 Part 上平聲 Bab 支 Lineage 隨

隨:隨：從也，順也，又姓風俗通云隋侯之後漢有博土隨何後漢有扶風隨蕃。旬爲切，三。隨:隋：國名本作隨。《左傳》云：漢東之國隨爲大漢初爲縣後魏爲郡又改爲州隋文帝去辵

   *廣韻 part 上平聲 Domain 脂 Title 伊

伊:伊：惟也，因也，侯也，亦水名又州本伊吾廬地在燉煌之北大磧之外秦末有之漢爲伊吾屯隋爲郡貞觀初慕化内附置伊州焉又姓伊尹之後今山陽人。於脂切，五。

   *太平御覽,人事部五十六,《孝女》

孝女: 《唐書》曰：劉寂妻夏侯氏，滑州胙城人，字碎金。父長云，為鹽城縣丞，因疾喪明。碎金遂求離其夫，以終侍養。經十五年，兼事后母，以至孝聞。及父卒，毀瘠殆不勝喪，被發徒跣，負土成墳，廬於墓側，每日一食，如此者積年。貞觀中，有制表其門閭，賜以粟帛。 又曰：于敏直妻張氏，營州都督、皖城公儉之女也。數歲時父母微有疾，即觀察顏色，不離左右，晝夜省侍，宛若成人。及稍成長，恭順彌甚。適延壽公于欽明子敏直。初聞儉有疾，便即號勇自傷，期於必死。儉卒后，凶問至，號哭一慟而絕。高宗下詔，賜物百段，仍令史官編錄之。 又曰：楊紹宗妻王氏，華州華陰人也。初年三歲，所生母亡，吻繼母鞠養。至年十五，父又征遼而沒。繼母尋亦卒。王乃收所生母及繼母尸柩，并立父形像，招魂遷葬訖，又廬於墓側，陪其祖母及父墳。永徽中，詔曰：「故楊紹宗妻王氏，因心為孝，率性成道。年迫桑榆，筋力衰謝。以往在隋朝，父沒遼左，招魂遷葬，負土成墳，又葬其祖父母等，竭此老年，親加板筑。痛結晨昏，哀感行路。永言志行，嘉尚良腎攏宜標其門閭，用旌敏德。」賜物三十段、粟五十碩。 又曰：孝女賈氏，濮州鄄城人也。始年十五，其父為宗人玄基所害。其弟強仁年幼，賈氏撫育之，誓以不嫁。及強仁成童，思共報復，乃候玄基殺之，取其心肝，以祭父墓。遣強仁自列於縣，有司斷以極刑。賈詣闕自陳己為，請代強仁死。高宗哀之，特制賈氏及強仁免罪，移其家於洛陽。 又曰：汴州李氏孝女，年八歲，父卒，柩殯在堂十餘載，每日哭泣無限。及年長，母欲嫁之，遂截發自誓，請在家終養。及喪母，號毀殆至滅性。家無丈夫，自營棺槨，州里欽其至孝，送葬者千餘人。葬畢，廬於墓側，蓬頭跣足，負土成墳，手植松柏數百株。季昶列上其狀，制特表其閭，賜以粟帛。

   *《草木四》 Part 《叙牡丹》 Page 1

牡丹花，世謂近有。盖以隋末文士集中。無牡丹謌詩。則楊子華有晝牡丹處極分明。子華北齊人，則知牡丹花亦已久矣。出尚書故實又謝康樂集。亦言竹間水際多牡丹。而隋朝種植法七十餘卷中。不說牡丹者，則隋朝花藥中所無也。出酉陽雜爼

   *之 Part 葘

夔：夔龍亦州名春秋時魚國漢爲魚復縣梁隋皆爲巴東郡唐初改爲信州又改爲夔州取夔國名之又獸名似牛一足無角其音如雷皮可以冒鼓。

   *鬼三十五 Part 《浮梁張令》

頃為隋朝權臣一奏。遂謫居此峯。爾何德於予，欲陷吾為寒山之叟乎。令哀祈愈切。仙官神色甚怒。俄有使者，齎一函而至，則金天王之書扎也。仙官覽書，笑曰。關節既到，難為不應。召使者反報，曰。莫又為上帝譴責否。乃啟玉函，書一通，焚香再拜以遣之。凡食頃。天符"符"原作"府"，據明鈔本改。乃降。其上署徹字。仙官復焚香再拜以啟之，云。張某棄背祖宗，竊假名位。不顧禮法。苟竊官榮。而又鄙僻多藏，詭詐無實。百里之任，已是叨居；千乘之富。今因苟得。令按罪已實。待戮餘魂。何為奏章，求延厥命。但以扶危拯溺者，大道所尚；紓刑宥過者，玄門是宗。狥爾一甿。我"我"原作"俄"，據明鈔本改。全弘化，希其悛惡，庶乃自新。貪生者量延五年。奏章者不能無"無"原作"書"，據明鈔本改。罪。仙官覽畢，謂令曰。大凡世人之壽。皆可致百歲。而以喜怒哀樂。汨沒心源。愛惡嗜欲，伐生之根。而又揚己之能，掩彼之長，顛倒方寸，頃刻萬變。神倦思怠，難全天和。如彼淡泉。汨於五味。欲致不壞。其可得乎。勉導歸途，無墮吾教。令拜辭。舉首已失所在。復尋舊路，稍覺平易。行十餘里。黃衫吏迎前而賀。令曰。將欲奉報，願知姓字。吏曰。吾姓鍾。生為宣城縣脚力。亡于華陰，遂為幽冥所錄。遞符之役，勞苦如舊。令曰。何以勉執事之困。曰。但酧金天王願曰。請置子為閽人，則吾飽神盤子矣。天符已違半日，難更淹留。便與執事別，入廟南柘林三五步而沒。是夕，張令駐車華陰，決東歸。計酬金天王願，所費數逾二萬，乃語其僕曰。二萬可以贍吾十舍之資糧矣，安可受祉于上帝，而私謁於土偶人乎。明旦，遂東至偃師，止于縣館。見黃衫舊吏，齎牒排闥而進，叱張令曰。何虛妄之若是。今禍至矣。由爾償三峯之願不果。俾吾答一飯之恩無始終。悒悒之懷，如痛毒螫。言訖，失所在。頃刻，張令有疾，留書遺妻子，未訖而終。出《纂異記》

I don't care about any fiction made from the Later Sui II Empire.

Please give me permission to make it or in exchange of that please help me make the article.ADHZ07111989 (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please help me review the pages laterADHZ07111989 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, we just need a WP:CIR block for this one. Those sources are about the original (and historical) Sui dyntasty, not the later one. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I stumbled upon your project for Kentucky counties and wanted to give you a big a thumbs up. I have a similar project for Missouri counties. It gives me a great excuse to drive about the state on routes I'd never have a reason to otherwise and see some interesting small towns. --Kbh3^rdtalk 18:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was , as you say, before my time here. An interesting case to read about. (no, I don't mind being mentioned as the antithesis) DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoaaaa....slow down on Kansas County templates. Someone already removed the state templates from every city article, so I added this common info to the county templates. I don't understand why that information can't exist in the county templates, because it is related information, unlike if I added "Lists of Fruits" and "List of Vegetable" which are completely unrelated. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "County navbox" guideline? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a new editor I was losing faith over the value of Wikipedia based on the discussions at Griffin talk. I was pretty much disgusted with the failure to follow BLP policy. Your diligence in evaluating the RfC has renewed my faith in the editing process. Thank-you.--Pekay2 (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend. I don't know how much you reviewed the talk page before you made your close, but the article has been fiercely contested, and has been protected twice for edit warring. I've been trying to move us through DR by making bite-sized efforts. We were able to agree to change the infobox and got that implemented through an edit request. The next step was addressing the first sentence - just the first sentence. I didn't agree with your close, and to be honest I don't think it was fair to the "yes", which definitely had more !votes and is the side that I think best reflects BLPFRINGE (and conspiracy theories are definitely fringe matters, and the policy that deals with fringe matter is PSCI). However I wasn't going to question it - I could live with taking "conspiracy theorist" out of the lead. But your edit implementing the close rewrote the entire lead.

My plan for the next step in DR is actually to address the rest of the lead, to get that settled. If other people have issues after that, they can handle them as they like.

I would appreciate it if you would reel back your implementing edit to just deal with the first sentence - simply removing "conspiracy theorist" from the first sentence, per the scope of the RfC. Other people may want to create drama around that, but I don't. You probably saw that I unwisely jumped to AN to have your close reviewed, but a wiser editor advised me to discuss this with you first, so I reeled all that back, and here I am. I would like to avoid drama and just move smoothly to the next step - an RfC on the lead per se, outside the first sentence.

Please let me know your thoughts on scaling back your edit to fit with the scope of the RfC. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, your behavior is embarrassing, and totally out of line. Claiming that you tried to move us through DR by making bite-sized efforts is laughable. You've been WP:SQS, which has been a disruption to progress, not a help. Nyttend made a decision based on his evaluation of the responses in accordance with WP:Consensus. The BLP violations in the lead were blatant and the reason the article was "fiercely contested" - you still refuse to acknowledge it. Your proposal to edit one sentence every 30 days is outlandish, and further demonstrates your SQS attempts. After a month long RfC, in addition to lengthy discussions on RSN and BLPN, you are still disputing the decision of an RfC because you don't like the outcome, WP:JDL. Now you have resorted to making spurious claims against the closer which includes edit warring. Unbelievable. He corrected the BLP violations you refuse to acknowledge. He followed WP:CONSENSUS as he was obliged to do. If anyone was edit warring, it was you. [10] [11], and I think perhaps your behavior and accusations against the closer of the RfC may warrant AE. Atsme☯^Consult 01:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying on my Talk page, Nyytend. I responded there. Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure why this isn't being discussed here on the page of the admin who closed the RfC. What we have now is an action that exceeds the question posed by the RfC -- and then when editors attempt to rectify the overstepping, the same admin implements full protection and then repeats the error. I'd really prefer that we can get this sorted out informally via discussion here... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nomo - it is happening there, b/c Nyytend replied there. There is no set protocol for how/where editors reply to each other on their talk pages. i am grateful that nyytend is engaging and fwiw I think it is better if we remain focused on the substantial issues. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented full protection because of the edit war — you may have noticed that people were reverting back and forth. As I said to Jytdog, if consensus holds that "conspiracy theorist" is inappropriate in the first sentence, it's completely inappropriate to go right off and call his ideas "conspiracy theories" just afterward. Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the protection was good judgement - thanks for doing that. I do look forward to your reply at my Talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WRT your closing, I am wondering if you looked at the thread immediately above the RFC. If so, then your closing statement might be revised to reflect that fact. If not, you might state whether or not your decision would have changed. I am thinking about the "scope of the RFC" argument and the assertion that it was "carefully worded". I'll comment on the AN in this regard. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[12] Why should these not be archived? NE Ent 10:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've reverted your edit on Topeka removing the section on "Google" to help with a discussion on the talk page. I know your edit removal was in good faith and you may end up being correct to remove it, but I just would feel more comfortable if we had a discussion about it first. So please take no offense and swing on by to discuss the issue at Talk:Topeka, Kansas.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend, thanks for the RfD closes. Did you mean to delete or retarget some of the entries at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 6#Several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa. Your closing statement mentioned comments below, and since none of those were yours, I was expecting this to be a sort of split decision based on the individual redirects anyone wanted to do anything but delete with. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i went ahead and asked for a review of your close: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_review_of_close_of_RfC_at_Griffin_article. Thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nyttend, if you're not going to defend your actions at AN, then I'll go ahead and revert the edit that exceeded the scope of the RfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fee tail, has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend,

Did you mean to delete this redirect as well? I noticed that you closed the RFD as delete here. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I noticed that Kirchner UN speech also has an RFD tag on it that links to that RFD discussion. So should we just remove the RFD tag from that page? Natg 19 (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. Everything is quite fine re. my status. Now, here is one albeit stale that I thought ought be blocked: Special:Contributions/Negguhz. - Bossanoven (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is too close to an offensive slur. - Bossanoven (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seemed pretty egregious to me. I always presume that the user will return. Anyhow, I am off to sleep. Good night. - Bossanoven (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend, thanks for closing the AN/I thread on Degen Earthfast's conduct. I agree he probably went to bed, which is exactly what I did. I wanted to ask if you would consider undoing his edit to Ministry of Defence Police as I would rather avoid any further confrontation with him, don't wish to be considered edit warring myself and ultimately if Degen wants to make a controversial edit then the burden of evidence lies with him to cite appropriate sources. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm contacting you because you were the admin that deleted Dr. Rafiq Husseini (at 23:50, 15 February 2010) on grounds of (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Most politicians don't have a shred of notability) While I agree with your general assessment of politicians I disagree with it in this instance. He is notable, inter alia, as the Deputy Secretary General (Water and Environment Division), representing Palestine, of the Union for the Mediterranean.

This is one (or uniquely) of the few international bodies where representatives of the states of Israel and Palestine work together in equal roles.I had considered writing an article on him because the distinguished Israeli Secretary General already has one. Reinventing wheels is a tedious and thankless task. I wonder if you could do a TempUndelete so that I can access any citations or other pertinent text to sandbox it and bring it up to scratch. The Mediterranean Union (a Sarkozy, who I disliked, construct) would have been a better mechanism for the EU in the context of the Ukraine and saved the ensuing mess that is still occurring there. Thanks Cathar66 (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Moreover, why is administrative intervention needed in this situation? It doesn't seem like an incident that needs an administrator. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I'm quite perplexed at this, but no idea what to say. I will travelling on business today and would appreciate it if you could please keep an eye on this for me. Very gratefully yours In ictu oculi (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you made a move to put commas around "Sr." as "standard English usage". I used to do it that way, too, which beats what most WP editors do, which is to omit the comma after. But recent discussions have led to a further emphasis on the more modern style without the commas. I moved the page to a possibly poor title, but one that I can at least find in sources, since I wasn't able to undo your move. What would you do next? Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you actually went and took a picture of the place. What else do you know about it? Was John Kennel, Sr., the guy's name? Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask why an administrator is uploading an image, not noting the changes explicitly outside of the file name, and full protecting it. Is that use of full protection even within policy? If he wants to propose an image, that's his right. But if he's not going to properly document it, but will full-protect, there's a problem. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, take a look at a photo of the actual painting hanging on a wall here. Now compare it with the old file and the "google art project" file. As you'll see, the old file is the closest to the actual painting. It is not a heavily retouched painting or something like that. Please remove the "edit" from the file title and the description of it as retouched. --Lecen (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different copy of the painting, in a different museum, possibly by a different address. You either know this, or aren't bothering to read responses. This is getting a bit WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but it may just be that you didn't bother to check if anyone responded before putting almost the identical comment in another place. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend:

I'm hoping to go on an NRHP photo-hunting excursion in the next few weeks. If you have any you've yet to upload, let me know, so I don't end up getting duplicates.. I'm probably going to focus on upper East Tennessee, and the counties of Giles, Lincoln, and Franklin (along the AL border). Bms4880 (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nyttend . I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (54th!), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki-kitten is here to thank you for taking part in my survey!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review the article that I nominated for speedy deletion, was republished, then deleted again? Something seems weird here, especially given the reddit forum I noticed with comments on spamming the page when it was released from deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Edward_Alahverdian EricJ1074 (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to escalate this situation but i tried to make points over on that admin's page. I am getting too frustrated and can't deal with it. We put work and effort into that article after reconsidering it and now it's all washed away. THere saying it's a local story when it clearly is not. People on the talk page supported GNG. They seem to have a personal thing against this guy or his cause. They are making it sound like it was a simple court case. 30+ sources We should be able to rewrite it from the old article but we can't even access that so i wouldnt even know where to start. They sould at least give us a chance to salvage the old material. How are we supposed to remember all of the sources? It would be much easier to let us rewrite it or let the community decide abotu deletion. This hasty action from a deletion that we know nothing about was in 2013. It is now 2015. Clearly there is a better way to deal with this. EricJ1074 (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that other admin says on his talk page " I'm not online very often these days, so if you think an admin action I've taken is wrong or no longer useful, go ahead and undo or change it without feeling like you have to talk to me first." So looks like you have a greenlight. EricJ1074 (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to blow your page up, but this is just getting worse. So there's a conspiracy that I am involved (lol) and know these parties personally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Floquenbeam#User:EricJ1074They are targeting the Matthew Fabisch article now that the Alahverdian article is deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Fabisch&oldid=646907258 And there is even more abuse from the reddit users. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FixingMisleadingInformation We need to get the page back up so people can look at the notes on the talk page where I pointed out that the reddit users were planning a spamfest. These people are nuts. EricJ1074 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even more of a mess. EricJ1074 (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1/365.2425 of a year for abuse of editing privileges."? :O How many people know that this is actually a day and not some obscure fraction?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every link on User:Nyttend/ZIP/FL is now blue except for River Ranch, Florida. I did some research, and River Ranch is a resort with its own post office, not an actual community. I'm not convinced the resort is notable (my research mostly turned up press releases and the occasional travel guide), and I don't want to write an article on it just for the sake of "completing" that list. I'm inclined to declare that list done and redirect it, but it's your list so I wanted to see what you think about it first. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

==

==