Archives

Archive 1 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 Long Inactive Period October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 June 2013 November 2013

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Abraham modal haplotype. 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. I would like to request undelete since the sources were reliable being used as reference for the second artcile by Rozhadinii which makes it secondary source not primary source since the second study by Rozhadinii endorse it and speaks about the same sunject of klyosov. study. both studies are master studies according to ISOGG website and others which make the whole study (researcher, study, and journal) reliable. both articles are published in Proceedings of the russian academy of dna genealogy, which has issn and oclc but I forgot to put them thinking doi number suffice. also many articles studies referenced both articles klyosov 2009, and rozhadinii as immediately shown with googling where the study show cited by number articles. I also had a list of articles that referenced and cited the klyosov studies and also mentioned the abraham mh in their studies. I was stonewalled in the deletion discussion. for while I responded to Notability request by stating the study or article is notable according to Notability guideline, I get responses commenting on my using the word notable ignoring the wikipedia Notability guidelines which they requested in the first place, which I explained I read it in detail. I am a retired MD with good knowledge of the dna subject, and even though i dont have BA in English I can still navigate Notability wiki section, but the they stonewalled me by wasting the 7 days on lecturing me about the word notable I used. I spent too much work on the page to see it deleted in a sec. the seven days for discussion were wasted on stonewalling. so I would like to add the many studies that referenced the article sources ( and criticized them) and to add issn and oclc to sources not just doi I am an old man who does not have time to read all over the wikipedia guidelines ( I have no space left in my brain for this) may be you can direct me to a solution.thanxViibird (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An ANI, in which you have been mentioned in and regarding a subject you were recently involved with, is currently taking place here; Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Beyond_My_Ken - ^theWOLFchild 23:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

I can see where the user undid edits by an administrator, but not administrative actions (which would be AFD and other discussion closures, and handling requests for unblock or edits to protected articles). Does this refer to edits that have now been deleted from the contributions page? Peter James (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please substitute your templates. Not doing so will cause the bot to ignore you and throw off the tally. I have done so for you in the Callanec RFA.—cyberpower _Online^{Happy Thanksgiving} 14:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the resolution of the debate on List of Web Performance Resources was delete, but I would like to obtain the most recent content of the article so I can move it elsewhere. I understand that this content is not appropriate for Wikipedia, so I would like to add it to a more appropriate place. Is there any way you can get that to me? Jnklein314 (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jnklein314: I've sent you an email with the page's contents at the time of deletion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I got it. Cheers, Jnklein314 (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, User:Oriole85 (contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps (contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jrcla2: I appreciate the heads up and have blocked both accounts. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually undid the change because I thought it was legitimate... until I saw that he was a sock of someone who had been banned/blocked for aggressive overcategorization. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You made 2 category changes here. I can't figure out the rationale. Seems the other categories were more specific. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Oh. Actually I see you are reverting a sock. If you don't mind, I'll put in the more specific categories myself. 18:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, like your non-existent edit summary, perhaps you should be as considerate of others as you demand for your own actions. The "Edit Summery" is for *everyone*, not just the Hoi Polloi such as myself. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to put in an edit summary for the over 1,000 edits that were done by this user, and I'm not required to do so. Perhaps you should read our WP:ROLLBACK policy again my friend. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you have been removing many articles from categories and adding parent categories. As an example, I just reverted Todd Mitchell where you removed "Sportspeople from Toledo, Ohio" and added "People from Toledo, Ohio." Per WP:SUBCAT, articles should rarely be in both and there really isn't a reason this article (and many like it) should be in the less specific parent category when the entire sub-category is already in it. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I plan to revert the basketball articles where this was done. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]