Archive 1

Archive 2

Hi Tortle! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 00:24, Sunday, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for reverting vandalism on Ibiza Airport, this helps the Wiki! RMS52 (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the thanks RMS52. Im new here and I assume you know your way around pretty well so if you have any tips for me starting out, I would liten with open ears. Nice to meet you. Tortle (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The best tips are to read the guidlines for editing on the Wikipedia, and start editing. I would also suggest asking an admin for any advanced information. RMS52 (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Whats an admin? RMS52. I just did the wikipedia adventure but I have come across a lot of more in depth sources on policies so I will read up on those before doing much editing. Tortle (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You could read Wikipedia:Administrator and find out. RMS52 (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! Tortle (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edit on the 1940 in Australian literature page. I take your point about the lead sentence not making sense - although I've seen it so often now I know what it's getting at. The original sentence on this and other "year in Australian literature" pages is based on the standard "year in literature page". That page, using 1940 in literature as an example, starts: "The year 1940 in literature involved some significant literary events and new books." There are probably around 500 of these pages - there are now some 80 Australian pages as well - so I think making the change in all of them is going to take some doing. Might be best if we changed it back. Any thoughts? Perry Middlemiss (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for collaborating with me instead of just undoing what I wrote User:Perry Middlemiss. First off, heres a diff to make it easy to refer to. So I agree we should change my phrase but I don't believe that we should keep the original because it hardly makes sense. I would be willing to undertake the project of changing them all if we come to a good phrase. Heres the original, "The year 1940 in Australian literature involved some significant new books, drama, poetry and events." Firstly, I think that "1940" and "Australian Literature" should split up because trying to fit the title into the sentence is awkward. Then, I think the word involved is a little out of context. And then finally, "drama" isnt plural like it should be but I dont even think that dramas should be included as they are just a subgroup of books and poetry, like for example, we wouldnt add other genres like history, sci-fi, mystery, etc. And "events" shouldnt be included either because "events" arent a type of literature and arent written about on the page. How about, The year of 1940 introduced many noteworthy works of Australian literature. Nice to meet you, lets bounce some ideas back and forth and try to fine tune this to make some sense of it. Tortle (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The other option is to follow the "year in poetry" line which reads as: "This article presents lists of historical events in poetry during 2012. For the historical context see Poetry in the early 21st century."

"Drama" was included for plays, scripts etc. "Events" was included because later years (say in the 2000s) include events that occurred in the literary world in Australia in the year in question. I don't look at these early year pages as being final or definitive so a number of items would and could be added later. I was attempting to make it consistent across all years.Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The option I gave took out the need to make a list like books, plays, poems etc. So I dont think we need to list them like the original. I do like the "year in poetry" line so how about a mix between mine and that one like, "This list presents the noteworthy works of Australian Literature fabricated throughout the course of the year 1940." What about that Perry Middlemiss? Tortle (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello? Tortle (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of response. I have been unwell the past few days. I'd prefer: "This article presents lists of historical events and publications in Australian literature during 1940."Perry Middlemiss (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries I hope you feel better Perry Middlemiss. I like your option a lot. Ill begin implementing it on the years of australian literature pages. Are there any others that I should replace it on thag you know of? Tortle (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't bother changing the "year in literature" pages as I think their template is pretty much set in stone. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so I started the Australian year in lit. pages and I wont mess with the main year in lit. pages. Afterwards, I might look for (other country's) year in lit. pages that might have the same template. Thank you for all your help and feedback. See ya around. Tortle (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

 Perry Middlemiss, I finished. I added some bold and changed a word or two to make more sense but its pretty much the same. Thanks again for the help Tortle (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:WIAGA and WP:LEADLENGTH. While I agree that the lengths of the iPhone 5S and Bernie Sanders article are a bit long for their overall size, you should not fail articles because they do not meet your personal criteria of "I will only mark this as a good article if the lead section is shorter in lengh than the infobox to it's right and if someone turns the hitler quote into a block quote."

Also, WP:CHECKLINKS is a good tool for checking if the references in the article are accessible on the Internet.

Thanks for editing Wikipedia.sovereign°sentinel alt 07:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, firstly, Its nice meeting you. Its not my personal criteria, heres the official criteria that says to follow the policy on lead sections, "b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." And the policy on lead sections says that it needs to be concise and succinct. I didnt think they were either of those so I requested that the lead section be shortened first. Ill check out that checklink link you suggested but I already read the other two. And 5s is at max and Bern. S. Is over it for paragraph count and the paragraphs are long anyway. And thats assuming that both articles are 30k+ characters which I didnt check nor would I know how. sovereign°sentinel alt. Tortle (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Tortle, your enthusiasm for Wikipedia is clearly high, which is great. However, for someone who has been editing Wikipedia for a week, and under this name for four days, this enthusiasm is clearly outstripping your knowledge of various Wikipedia processes.

On your first day as an autoconfirmed user, you have already nominated ten articles in the WP:GAN process, in direct contravention of the instructions which clearly says Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. You have also opened a Good Article review and closed a move request. These are not things new editors should be doing before gaining a great deal more experience (months, not days).

Since you appear to be a new editor (your request to usurp the name Tortle certainly implies that you are), please work, read, and observe more before venturing into areas that call for experience. I am reverting all of your GANs, since this kind of bulk nomination is inappropriate in any event, and more so since you have not done significant work on any of the articles. I will also be mentioning your actions at WT:GAN shortly, since in addition to the ten nominations there are already issues raised with your first review. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Far be it for me to challenge people who take the time to review articles for GA, but in this case I think it was a hasty promotion. The article, at best, is C-class. Cassianto^Talk 19:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I reverted; see WP:Primary topic. Flyer22 (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought that it was meant to go somewhere else. Tortle (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

These do not cover historical events, as your lead suggests, only literary ones. Bmcln1 (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Many of the pages that I am adding this to have an events section and since all the pages are from the past (ex. 1594 in literature) and most of the events listed are historically significant, I am doing no wrong in writing that they are historical. I applied this lead to all the xxxx in Australian Literature pages and have already applied it to about 100 of the xxxx in literature pages, the ones that you are reverting. I plan on applying the lead to all the pages to achieve the now non existent conformity that is needed here. I worked with another user to come up with this lead and have received no other criticism. I also dont appreciate you refertig multiple edits of mine before coming to my talk page and also writing in an edit summary that I need to think as I spent extensive time and effort on this project. Nice meeting you and I hope we can come to a civil conclusion to this Bmcln1. Tortle (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tortle, user:Bmcln1 has a good point regarding your edits to the "In literature" pages. They are not primarily about historical events, they are lists of literary events, which are historical because they occurred in that year. Any historical events listed are relevant only when they relate to literature. Your wording was excessively general, and gave the impression of a far wider scope than the title implies. Working with one other editor does not constitute a consensus across the encyclopaedia, or even a project. Also, Bmcn1 did not revert your edits, they were edited to provide a different content than existed before your edits were made. This is not reversion, and it is a perfectly legitimate, and in my mind, appropriate way of handling the matter, particularly as the text resulting from these edits is more suitable than either the original text or your edits. This is an example of how Wikipedia should work. I also don't think that Bmcln1's edit summaries were in any way uncivil. A request for you to think about what you are doing does not imply that you have not thought about it before, only that you need to think about it again, with which I concur. If you were to continue by using the version as edited by Bmcln1, the articles will be generally improved, but some day another editor may come up with a better version, which may not necessarily be applied to all the year in literature pages, as there is no requirement for them to conform to a consistent style. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Pbsouthwood. First off, I want to say that I didnt feel tat Bmcln1 was bwing uncivil, I just said that I would like to conversation to continue in a civil way as some discussions can get out of hand and I wanted to show that I am not trying to be antagonistic. As far as consensus, I wasnt trying to imply that discussion with another editor meant that it is good for everyone, I was merely trying to illustrate that I gave it some thought. The lead section that I am applying makes much more sense than the current one and I am here to improve the encyclopedia which I feel I am doing in changing these. At my pace, Ill be done applying it to every lead section tomorrow and it will be an improvement from what the leads were originally but of course theres still room for improvement and my lead isnt perfect. But the thing is is that after this, Im done with the literature pages. Someone can come up wih a better lead and apply it to 600+ pages or editors can edit pages individually. All I care about is that I made 600 pages a little bit better and set the bar a little higher for others to build on it. I had a long day so I hope I am making sense right now. Anyway, I hope that didnt come off as antagonistic as that wasnt the intent and it was nice meeting you. Tortle (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

And thanks for helping out at the wikiproject directory, Ill look intkt he categorization thing tomorrow for you. I recently was editing the page though to fit in with the directory project I just completed.Tortle (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, It looks like both of us may have been reading too much between the lines. I still think that Bmcln1's modification of your lead sentence is an improvement, and if they continue to make the change they have my support, as that would make the 600 pages better still. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think youre right, I might finish the rest up with Bmcln1's lead, Ill look into it. Ill see you around. Tortle (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lego you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank You Calvin999. Please ping me if you need anything! Tortle (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As promised, here is your barnstar for expanding Agate Desert. On behalf of the Cascadia Wikimedians User Group, congratulations on being the first recipient of a barnstar for Cascadia-related work. — Brianhe (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do remove constructive messages from your talk page or you may be blocked from editing. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 06:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If you would like to archive your discussions, you can install a bot on your talk page

When the conversations were finished, I archived them by hand. They are still accessable in my archives. So I did nothing wrong. I even am allowed to delete comments on my talk page if I wanted to. I cannot be blocked for archiving my talk page and you didnt even use an existent template, you just made a phony message. You had no right to remove everything from my archive and put it right back on my talk page. You are harassing me and I might report you. Tortle (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the harsh response, I thought you were a vandal and not acting out of good faith. But users do have the right to almost fullly control their their talk page. Wish we could meet under better circumstances, see you around. Tortle (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52:, It is far from clear why Tortle might be blocked for removing constructive messages from their talk page. I do not see anything in the blocking policy that justifies such action, or, for that matter your warning. I am confused, enlighten me. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that Tortle, aploligies. This was per WP:Talk page guidelines. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 08:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: I almost got blocked for doing this [1]. If Tortle was deleting them unpurpose I would be doing him a favour so he wouldn't get blocked. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 08:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52:There is a difference between editing or removing a third party's message on someone else's talkpage, which is not allowed, and cleaning up your own talk page by deleting or archiving discussions which are closed, and as a general rule one should defer to the opinion of the page owner as to when a discussion is closed. The only occasions that I am aware of where the page owner is not supposed to delete a closed discussion is when it is an official warning message for contravening established policy, posted by an admin, after a warning for similar unacceptable behiour. If I am mistaken please point me to the policy specifically stating what may not be deleted by the page owner. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: I don't know really, as I was never aware of this rule until now. And was unaware that Tortle was archiving. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 13:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Its all good now. Tortle (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Tortle,

I came across your contributions and noticed that you have recently moved the old WikiProject Wikipedia to Wikipedia:Defunct WikiProject Wikipedia and tagged it as "inactive", while attempting to create a new WikiProject Wikipedia with different focus from the original one. (The old WikiProject focused on Wikipedia-related articles, while the new one seems to focus on its internal workings.) I think you may have handled the situation incorrectly. If you were simply trying to revive the old project, you could have just revived it without moving the page to the new title. If you wanted to create an entirely different WikiProject, you should submit your ideas for approval at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals instead of just making it without prior discussion. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Dealing with inactive WikiProjects for information on how to properly deal with inactive WikiProjects, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Creating a WikiProject for the steps to creating (or reviving) a WikiProject. CabbagePotato (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I was unser the impression that the old one was for the same purpose of the inner workings but I might be wrong. I thought that instead of blanking it and restarting, I would move it so that theres it still exists in case someone wants to use the layout or something. If it is in fact on a different subject then its good that I didnt blank it. Theres not much I can do now though. And I already read through those links, the page said you didnt need to make a proposal if you think others will bw interested which I have already seen lots of interest in these subjects. Thanks, maybe youll want to join once construction is done. Tortle (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for offering me the choice to formally join the WikiProject, but I think I'll pass for now, since I don't tend to focus my edits in any specific areas here.

I also have a suggestion for you. If you look at the "What links here" page for "Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia", many pages link to it, and I'm worried that someone clicking on the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia at the top of the talk page for, say, History of Wikipedia might be expecting the older WikiProject instead of the newer one.

To minimize possible confusion, I would like to suggest a name change (move): I think the new WikiProject should be moved to something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Improve Wikipedia and the older one should be moved back to its original name, since inactive or defunct WikiProjects usually keep their old names as well. CabbagePotato (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer not to make a move after building multiple sub pages and already using the name for a template and in writing on some pages. I will look for pages linking to the old one though and try to fix them. Tortle (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I notice you have already moved some of the old WikiProject's pages. To be honest, it looks like your WikiProject has less subpages (not counting redirects to the old WikiProject) than the older one, but I suppose it's your decision, so I think I'll leave the decision to keep the new WikiProject at its current name up to you. However, I think I'll request a move for the old WikiProject, since it's sort of odd to have it prefixed with "Defunct". CabbagePotato (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I can move it to something else for you that makes more sense. I did do this in a pretty weird way but Im just gonna fix it. Tortle (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel like it would be better to have community input. Just my opinion. CabbagePotato (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It probably would have been a good idea in the beginning but now its pesonally easier for me to clean up the mess and finish it. I just finished moving the defunct one to improving wikipeidia. Tortle (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose I was late in suggesting it, but I think it would be helpful just to make sure others are accepting of the new title. I think I'll go ahead with an RfC or something like that. CabbagePotato (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Im already working on the links and its going to be fixed by tomorrow so I dont see the point at this point.

I understand. I just want to see what other people think, because some people might not like the old project's new name. I just want to prevent any possible future disagreements over a simple page title. CabbagePotato (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Tortle, I'd come here to say the same thing as User:CabbagePotato. WikiProject Wikipedia was "dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of itself", which meant content (generally articles) about Wikipedia, such as the article "Wikipedia". It wasn't to do with maintaining project pages (those prefixed by Wikipedia:) or improving the site in general. There're in the region of 800 pages that come under the-WikiProject-formerly-named-Wikipedia, see category WikiProject Wikipedia and its subcat Wikipedia articles by quality.

Moving it again, to "Improving Wikipedia" is worse (sorry!)—it has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia except for improving Wikipedia's coverage of one topic: articles about this encyclopedia. Nothing is unfixable though, don't worry.

Generally to change a title like this we do a requested move, at WP:RM. If you look at the WikiProject's talkpage here, you can see an editor opened one of those discussions last month. Feel free to ask if there's anything you're unsure of. –84.92.129.87 (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I dont really care much about WP:WikiProject Improving Wikipedia's title as that was a defunct article but I have applied that new name to a bunch of talk pages. Also, WP improving wikipedia seemed to have sponsored a bunch of articles and assessed a bunch of general article space articles. The page says its mission is to improve wikipedias coverage of itself which is in a way improving wikipedia. Tortle (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!--Moxy (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw your post on the Reward Board about redoing the lede sentence for all of these articles. I'm all about some consistency for that type of article so I did a bit of work today using AWB and knocked out all of 1600-1799. I caught some categorization issues and other minor problems while I was there as a bonus! Let me know if things look good or if there are any other areas left to do. Nsteffel (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I stopped work on that for a couple days to work on other things that came up and now it's off my chest. I actually removed it from the reward board because it didnt seem like anyone was interested. Ill get you your barnstars Nsteffel. Nice meeting you. Tortle (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I just got you your barnstars, you really should be getting twenty based on my original listing but I didnt expect anyone to do so many at a time and rewarding you 20 of the same barnstars would be odd so I gave you 5 different ones for your hard work. Theres not really more to do but one day, I might look at the years in poetry pages but as of now, Im starting WP:WikiProject Wikipedia which you can join as a charter member if you want now, the page is still under construction and the official opening will be in a day or two. Ill see you around and Ill ping you if I ever decide to do the years in poetry so maybe we can work together on it. Thanks Nsteffel Tortle (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

		The Stub Barnstar
		I thereby award you with The Stub Barnstar for expanding Nembrotha cristata to a Start-class article. Keep up the good work. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:Armbrust! Tortle (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be a test page. (See section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do, and take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
• It is unambiguous vandalism or an obvious hoax. (See section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia; doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:WPW Userbox/Founder, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy. (See section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:WPW Award/Founder's Barnstar, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy. (See section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:WPW Award/Founder's Trophy, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy. (See section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please imagine this future scenario.

• You graduate from high school or university, you become employed, and you build a house for yourself, possibly with some help from your friends and neighbors. You dwell in the house for several years with your spouse and children, and the house is very satisfactory.
• One day, a roofer visits you with an offer to build a new roof on your house. Although you are very satisfied with the roof that is on your house already, he tells you that it will cause problems. He says that he wants to provide a better roof to you. He says that he is operating a new business with a new business name, and that he has previous experience operating another construction business with a different business name. Finally, he convinces you to accept his offer of a new roof.
• However, before long, you have doubts about the new roof. You ask him to explain why he is doing what he is doing, but he tells you that he does not have time for that because he is too busy with construction. He tells you not to worry because he is a professional. Eventually, you wish that you had asked him to show you his credentials and his work references.
• Later, a new academic year starts at the beginning of September, and he tells you that he needs to leave the job half finished until the end of the semester. A few months after that, you are enjoying a reunion of your extended family in late December. Suddenly, the roof breaks open and a big clump of snow falls into the living room. You have fond memories of your old roof.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC) and 16:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Tortle, WikiProjects are collaborative projects that are organized by groups of editors. You should have posted a proposal for your new WikiProject at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council as one of their responsibilities is to "Accept proposals or requests for new projects, and assist in their creation; or, alternately, point those making the requests to the appropriate existing projects when applicable ones already exist."
The original WikiProject Wikipedia has been moved back to its original title and should not have been subject to a series of moves without discussion. The pages you created have been deleted but can be restored if you discuss a proposal for a new WikiProject under a different name at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Tortle's new WikiProject and receive support for your proposal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I recommend reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide and then Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject which provides guidance on organizing a WikiProject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I did read both of those before beginning and I didnt discuss creation as it said that if you think there will be support for the idea, you dont have to. The main issue was how I conducted the move and whatnot. I started reverting my edits like you asked, and if redoing the wikiproject, Ill do it he right way. User:Liz Thanks Tortle (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:WPW Userbox/Charter Member, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy. (See section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What's the main purpose in your edits to Wikipedia? I ask because there are extraordinarily many of them, and a quick look suggests that the only improvements they make are reversions of damage that you have previously inflicted. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The main purpose of my general edits are to improve wikipedia but recently i incorrectly moved a wikiproject and edited numerous pages and now that I know my actions were incorrect, I am reversing the damage User:Hoary. Tortle (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh-huh. After you have finished using automation to fix the damage that you inflicted yourself, please take a break from using any automation until you have made a good collection of substantive contributions. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I dont appreciate the tone and anyone is allowed to use twinkle so I dont appreciate the demand. But I dont like twinkle anyway because it makes my pages load slower and I dont really have a use for it. Tortle (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to read that you don't like Twinkle, and look forward to a small number of carefully thought out, substantive, neutral, reliably sourced, and verifiable additions to Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

On this edit of yours (rapidly reverted by User:NeilN, and rightly so), see this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary: I figured out what Tortle was trying to do - revert his own past tweak to a banner. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Give me a break Hoary. I know not to delete others comments, from already searching through my contributions, you surely know that this was just another revert of my previous edits and it was a mistake and the edit wasnt intended to delete the comment. Leave me alone. Tortle (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tortle, it's best not to close discussions about yourself on AN/I. Many thanks, Sarah ^(talk) 01:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I just got your message after closing it Sarah. I think it will be ok and if not, Ill deal with the criticism. Im allowed to and a conclusion has been reached already on the issue so I see no point in keeping it open. I understand my mistakes and want to move on from this sooner than later. Thanks Tortle (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I posted the above after reverting your closure, which you restored, so I've removed it again. It should be closed by someone uninvolved. Sarah ^(talk) 01:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I posted the closure and then noticed that the header was inside the purple box so I went to fix it. I put the header outside the box and saved it but the {{archivebottom}} template had a typo and looked like {{archivebottom} and the close didnt work properly due to the issue with the bottom template. Then you reopened the conversation by removing both templates. I assumed you removed both due to the fact that the template was a typo and you thought you were just removing a test edit of mine. So I reclosed it and noticed your comment here. I am allowed tio close it as there was a resolution. Tortle (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you User:Jayron32 for reclosing the conversation. Maybe involved users shouldnt close conversations that theyre involved in but they are still allowed to and undoing that is uncalled for as if theres an issue, they can face it Sarah. Thanks Tortle (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No Tortle, Sarah is right you shouldn't close discussions about yourself. Don't thank me that much. --Jayron32 02:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)