This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk page archives Current talk Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12 Archive 13 • Archive 14 • Archive 15 Archive 16 • Archive 17 • Archive 18 Archive 19 • Archive 20 • Archive 21 Archive 22 • Archive 23 • Archive 24 Archive 25 • Archive 26 • Archive 27 Archive 28 • Archive 29 • Archive 30 Archive 31 • Archive 32 • Archive 33 Archive 34 • Archive 35 • Archive 36 Archive 37 • Archive 38 • Archive 39 Archive 40 • Archive 41 • Archive 42 Archive 43 • Archive 44 • Archive 45 Archive 46 • Archive 47 • Archive 48 Archive 49 • Archive 50 • Archive 51 Archive 52 • Archive 53 • Archive 54 Archive 55 • Archive 56 • Archive 57 (template link) (revert point)

Hi there, I am the one who initiated the Level Pi page. I am a German living in Australia where there is next to none coverage of "classic" electronic music in the Berlin School sense. Level Pi's music combines the Berlin School with guitar sounds a la Pink Floyd which I believe is a new and unique style which warrants exposure in the English Wikipedia. As the article states, Level-Pi's 1st CD was published in 2006 under the Garden of Delights label and his 2nd on the Musea label. Both important labels for krautrock and electronic/progressive music. Level Pi's music was reviewed in magazines and e-zines important to this kind of music ("Exposé Magazine", "babyblaue-seiten.de", "backgroundmagazine.nl", "empulsiv.de" and others mentioned in the reference list). I am against the proposal for deletion as this article presents an artist which warrants exposure in Wikipedia. Moreover, all references are from reliable sources as far as I can tell. It would be a loss if this article is not available anymore as it gives some attention to this fascinating kind of music and particularly this artist. Please let me know what should/could be included to meet the standards. Phoenix69 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

From the third graf of the intro:

... the government sought merely to compel forfeiture of the fins under in rem jurisdiction instead of prosecuting the crew, resulting in the unusual case title.

To summarize the linked article, in rem cases are literally jurisdiction "over the thing," usually sought in civil forfeiture cases like this one since the standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence) is lower than it would be in a criminal case. We have a lot of other articles on these ... last year in an attempt to get some on for April Fools', I created United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, Quantity of Books v. Kansas and Marcus v. Search Warrant (all are obscenity cases from the '60s and '70s).

In rem case titles are usually funny at first (we also have United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, done by someone else) but since the vast majority of them might be summarizes as State or Federal Government v. Some Cool-Sounding Luxury Goods Allegedly Used to Commit Crimes Like Dealing Drugs or Purchased with Proceeds Thereof, they get boring after a while. But this one isn't the sort of thing you expect to see getting seized, so it's often turned up on lists of funny court-case titles (I think it's also the contrast between the "approximately" and such a specific, yet large, number). And, it's certainly notable in its own right. I figured it would make a great April Fools' article, and so far it looks like I was right. Perhaps I should do this one next year as a sequel.

SCOTUS articles are my other area besides NRHP, generally, but since they involve more time I don't do them as much. This is technically not a SCOTUS case, but most cases from the appeals courts are probably just as notable since they become binding precedent in those circuits. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Hammons is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hammons (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

You participated in the first AFD discussion, the article was recreated and I thought you might want to comment. Coffeepusher (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You might be interested in this ANI discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nyttend I marked this redirect titles for deletion:

• Sri Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya
• Sri RamaKrishna Mission Vidyalaya
• Ramakrishna Mission Vidyapith,Deoghar,Jharkhand,India
• Ramakrishna Mission Vidyapith, Deoghar, Jharkhand

Reason: Actually none of this are created as redirects. They are either moved or merged. For reorganising this I created the pages Ramakrishna Mission Vidyapith,Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya. This redirects actually create more confusions because there is no institution named Sri Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya or Sri RamaKrishna Mission Vidyalaya.

By the way sorry for any trouble. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, you declined A7 speedy deletion on the subject article on the grounds that the article claims the subject participated in the Olympic Games. The article states that the subject participates in "Olympic freestyle wrestling"; I interpret "Olympic freestyle wrestling" in this context to mean Olympic-style freestyle wrestling, not that he participated in the Olympic Games. Would you reconsider speedy deletion on this one? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a good point. However, the article also claims that he won seven national championships in the UK, which is an assertion of importance. I'd say it's best just to wait until the BLPPROD expires. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that approach. However, I will shortly be moving it to a more logical title. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A novice user has expressed disquiet, off-wiki, over Rachel Khoo, which they created and whose speedy deletion you actioned. I'm attempting to assist them, and help them learn to edit better. Please will you therefore undelete the article, if neccessary to my user space, in order that I may do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Nyttend. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nyttend. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Farrans Construction Ltd, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been edited since it was tagged and is no longer a COPYVIO or unambiguous promotion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, could you please, instead of reverting, look at the talk page for Category:Health in Tibet where i explained why I am proposing deletion. This category only contains a single category, which is itself up for speedy deletion. If there is a different speedy deletion template i should use, please replace it, instead of just deleting. thanks --Karl.brown (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Re your message: Different WoW. =) The WoW I was referring to is World of Warcraft. Note the links buried in the middle or end of their deleted edits. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see here and contribute, re the changes I made and the reverts you just made. thanks. --KarlB (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

at List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield. This is turning out to be more of a battlefield that I had realized, but these things often are. It appeared to me that what you did to improve the image formatting was remove the word "thumb" from the equation? A nice trick that I will have to remember, if that is it. Thanks again, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Life is good. Carptrash (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

After a period of relative peace, the "lions in Cat Creek folks" are back. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC).

Edit war about to break out over the issue of lions in Cat Creek?!! Please see the following: User talk:Montanalions, probably a sock of User:Catcreekcitycouncil, User:Timothyjohnson12 and User:Catcreek, on a crusade to introduce extraneous and possibly erroneous material into the article. Has already reverted the article to introduce a history section. "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope ..." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC).

This article I am going to re-create as it has significance to my article 4G Australia. Vivid Wireless is a 4G Mobile phone company in Australia. and in my own words from 4G Australia "Vivid Wireless currently operates a 4G, 1800 MHz network in conjunction with Three Australia. The network operates in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth".

Thanks Mbbuser (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend:

We need an admin to close the discussion at WikiProject Photography, re: the merger of two projects. Consensus is clear. Bms4880 (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean it's five years old, I created it a few hours ago... Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 12:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I just moved them though, the page history moved to the new page. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 12:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It was there before you removed the tag! [1]. Also, I have never had these problems before, look at this deletion log, there were no problems there.Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 12:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your help. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 12:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend. Thank you very much indeed for your help. I will keep an eye on the talk page although I won't be using the site too often in the coming months due to a study project. I'm afraid I brought a lot of this on myself by "feeding the troll" so to speak when I when was trying to defend another editor. I'm awarre of policies like WP:RBI now and will adopt thoes in future. Thanks again. Kind regards. --Jim Hardie (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You blocked Bacr13 (talk · contribs) for "496,800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planck times" (which the block log listed as "2678400 seconds"). This raises two questions:

1. Is it really useful to anyone to use such obscure times? Why not just say 31 days and be done?
2. Since BACR13 has already been temporarily blocked once, and returned to simply vandalize again, why not just a permanent block?

Just curious. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've resolved the copyvio issue by deleting the article and restoring the last version before all of the copyvios were added. However, this involved getting rid of lots of improvements, so I manually restored the changes that I knew were helpful, such as your addition of episodes #52-60 and the inclusion of a link to hr:Abismo de pasión. Did I still delete useful content? I've put the content of the most recent deleted revision of the article (an edit you made nine hours ago with the summary of "Added last night's episode name & runtime") at User:Nyttend/Abismo de pasión. Please check that page, compare the differences between the most recent deleted version (the version of 11:44 on my userpage) and the version that's currently on the article (the version of 11:46 on my userpage), and copy over anything that I should have restored but didn't. When you're done, please let me know; I don't need to have this page hanging around in my userspace forever, and I'll delete it in a week or two if I don't hear from you before then and if I remember to get it deleted. Nyttend (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I read the disclaimer, so I hope you don't mind. I want to thank you for taking care of the copyvio problem as it has been a problem for a few months now. You can successfully delete that "test" page if you wish, as I copied everything to Notepad. Everything, as far as I know, is on par, but I would like to know if you could locate the recent version of the cast section. It was organized using a wikitable. If not, then I'll manually add it (if I can...) Platinum Star (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Big kudos to you. Now the article looks great. Also, what should I do with the Technical team section: remove it as unsourced or placed said info on the infobox? A few telenovelas articles have that section as well. Platinum Star (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed that section in various articles as well. Thanks again. Platinum Star (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you did well. I was going to suggest all of these sites, but thought your time was limited .... Feel free to post XXX and the Chocolate Shop on my talkpage and I'll make sure they get in the right articles.

Smallbones (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Know you have an account at Commons too, so thought I'd ask. I've added to/created a slew of new archaeological sites for Georgia and the south lately. A few have illustrations/photos on nps.gov sites or are credited to NPS. I was wondering if you knew anything about how to find out if we can use them and upload them to commons, I know a lot of the government stuff are PD, but am having trouble figuring out how to do it. Some specific ones I'm interested in so far are :

• Lamar Mounds and Village Site, see BandW photo of mound and drawing of mound layout for images.
• King Archaeological Site, see upper right hand painting by Townsend This one is iffy if we can use it or not, but I think the 2 for Lamar would be good

Any help would be appreciated. Heiro 00:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

In a case like this, should I have reported both users? I'll admit I have a slight bias toward users I've worked with and discussed with in the past, and I'll concede I have an opinion on the subject under dispute (I reverted 89.100.207.51's blanking here). However, seeing as it was a "did not/did too" dispute, is it preferable to list both offenders? BusterD (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Healthy. Why are you blocking me? I have not harassed anyone mail. Secondly I do not know the rules of Wikipedia. I do not see the purpose of your block. --89.216.35.11 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Velimir Ivanovic? Not to be confused with Velimir Ivanović. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 19:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked for rather blatant evasion. Ebyabe, I'm confused about what you mean. Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there something about user names revealing too much info, or something like that? Either he is the Serbian football player, or using a name that implies they are. Like if there were User:George Clooney. Academic, I suppose, since they're indef blocked. Just another nail in the wall. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 19:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend, I wonder if you might be able to tell me why you reversed my CSD deletion of the articles from this AfD. They didn't "survive" the AfD in the sense that any sort of consensus-building took place; nobody commented on the nomination at all, presumably because nobody's interested in them (they are orphaned articles). I'd nominated them as an AfD just as a matter of procedure because of the number of articles, but they're all A7 candidates that refer to largely fictitious organisations without RS. If these can't be CSD'd, what can happen to them? They certainly can't be left around, since they appear to be an effort to use Wikipedia to legitimise Edwin Hitti's fictitious Arab-related organisations. In addition, please ensure that you notify other administrators prior to overturning their actions as a matter of courtesy. Best, --Tristessa (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was closed without a result of delete, and per the intro to WP:CSD, "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." As that page further instructs you, the correct procedure is to create a second AFD. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It strikes me as unnecessarily paper-pushing though — I could have A7 deleted all of those articles to begin with (they'd mostly been CSD'd before if you check the history), but because I sent it to AfD and nobody commented it somehow protects the article. Yes, I know what WP:CSD says, but it does strike me as a bit illogical. Still, if you'd prefer me to follow that to the letter, I will. Best, --Tristessa (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

An article that you have edited has been nominated for deletion. I would appreciate your feedback at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinpa Tenpel. gidonb (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry you had to block me, no hard feeling here, I should have handled things differently. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the comment. I'm pretty sure I did add the unreferenced template to the Habits of Mind page -- I shared that Category: Articles lacking sources link as a follow-up to my original question in an attempt to communicate to other people who might have the same question where I found the information about adding the unreferenced template. In retrospect, this was not very clear! I'm new and still figuring things out. Thanks again for your help! Rafmildenhall (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to bother you, but an editor keeps restoring unsourced material, even after he was linked to this article twice. I'm not willing to risk myself getting warned for edit warring, so I thought I'd mention the issue with you before it gets out of hand. Platinum Star (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as my reverts are considered reasonable and not an attempt to edit war, then it's no problem at all. Platinum Star (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I asked for deleting three user pages. All of them are related with Wikipedia:School and university projects/Universitat Jaume I - E-translating. These subuser pages where used as a space for writting their draft, but a draft in Spanish. I imported these texts and these histories in Spanish Wikipedia. I think that now, they are not useful here, and however, they could be used for writting the same draft in two different wikipedia versions, and more work because we must import another time. And these pages are edited by many people because they were used as a draft, as I've said.

The pages were User:Patricia Carbonell/Translationdraft, User:Lalilolailo/Translationdraft and User:EnriqueGarcia/Translationdraft.

Regards. --Millars (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Each project has its own templates, and I'm not acquainted yet with deletion templates of en:wp. Regards. --Millars (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you meant to remove the ((unsourced section)) with this edit, just wanted to check as the section sill contains unsourced content. Mtking ^(edits) 05:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I went through the history and didn't see anything but new scores (is that the right term) added. Can you give a more thorough rationale as to why it's a BLP violation? Thanks so much. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, BLP aside, I see a 3RR violation by the user in question.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is true, but if it is a BLP violation, then any blocks handed out wouldn't be for 3RR. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

When I was blocked for a BLP violation, it was also for 3RR.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That happens sometimes. It depends on the individual situation. I personally will wait to act until I hear more from Nyttend. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that. My concern with citing 3RR is that, for one, you also violated 3RR in reverting him. However, I don't feel like a block is warranted in your case because you were simply reverting unsourced information that was being added in violation of...well, a bagful of policies. Let me take one more look; I'll keep you posted. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's 2 AM where I am, so here's what I'm thinking. Cabj hasn't edited since blanking his talk page a couple hours ago. I'll check up on everything tomorrow morning (~9 or so hours), and see if any further action is warranted. I'm also really hesitant to hand out a block that seems punitive - if he's finished edit-warring, then there's really no need to block. Obviously, if he continues to add unsourced information after the warning I'm about to post to his talk page, then I'll strongly consider a block. Thanks so much for being patient and calm. I respect that a lot. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Upon further reflection (and sleep), I've decided to put this up on AN/I. Not trying to cause drama, obviously, but I just don't feel comfortable taking unilateral action in this case. Sorry to drag this out. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have refused both G6 requests which I just made. I would be grateful if you could reconsider both.

Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan is now commonly known as PotashCorp. Look at the company's own website and annual report and the full legal name Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan is barely mentioned except in footnotes.

The name Tech City is the name used in the hub's official government web site (Tech City is a UK government initiative): [2] and is the name most commonly used by the media: [3]. I actually started the Tech City article but did so on the day of the projects launch, before the name was crystallized.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I’m glad that you assisted me in fixing the Brown ministry page. The final move I had in mind is moving Cameron Ministry to Cameron ministry, as per WP:CAPS. I can’t move over the redirect, for whatever reason, and I was hoping you could do it on behalf. This will bring all articles from Attlee to Cameron in consistent usage. Thanks in advance. RGloucester (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a chance that guest editing can be permanently disabled for Abismo de pasión? Not only is the restoration of a translated synopsis an issue (it happened again, and I warned the IP editor for that), but the insertion of a duplicate cast section is really getting out of hand. These three editors are the only ones that make those edits in that article. Platinum Star (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Highly appreciated, thanks. Platinum Star (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. As the main contributer of Saturday Disney episodes, I see the article as a long list that will keep growing longer and is just something that could be merged into the main article. I mean, not in the format that it is now, but maybe I could put the important dates (e.g. premiere dates, new episode dates) on the main page, so that the 'episodes' page isn't needed. We could to it like Toasted TV's shows are done.. you see, no other blocks have the ep list and it feels weird that SD does. If that happened, could the 'episodes' page be deleted? Thanks. Information Star (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've raised your protection of WP:UAA/BOT on Wikipedia_talk:Usernames_for_administrator_attention#Bot_page_protection as this was done without any communication with the regular handlers of page, never mind any consensus. The page doesn't have a problem with disruptive editing and I would like to revert your action. Would you like to join in the discussion on that page? Thanks. Secretlondon (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - and sorry for the tone above. Secretlondon (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Hghyux's talk page.
Message added 02:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I am Chandan Kumar from India and an active user & contributor of Wikimedia as (Chandan.garhwa) from 2009, But have started contributing most from 2012. I want to contribute more to Wikipedia by adding more informative good articles which are not on Wikipedia till date. This is the image is mine and I grant Wikipedia to use this image. So the file should not be deleted. Becouse I am using this image to display on my Wikipedia Contributor profile. So that my identity will be verifiable on Wikipedia. --Chandan Kumar 02:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandan.garhwa (talk • contribs)

The article also counts sailors from navies and airmen from air forces, not just soldiers from armies. It may be better to move it to say "List of countries by number of servicemen". Nohomers48 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

That was fast. OK then I'll get to it. Nohomers48 (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Please undo your deletion of David Riehm. Since I had previously (albeit 3 years ago) declined deletion, your deletion constitutes a revert of my administrative decision without discussion. If you checked the history of the article, you'll have noticed that the article was live for almost 5 years, that a previous PROD has been contested and a speedy request declined - all of which are indications that the deletion would not be uncontroversial and thus that the article cannot be speedy deleted. As such, please undo your deletion and take it to AFD for discussion instead. Regards SoWhy 15:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to achieve with your recent edits to the template, but at time of writing all CSD templates are themselves listed at C:SD. Could you please review your code / use Template:Db-meta/sandbox? Thank you. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 01:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Its OK. TJRC managed to get the point of WP:OWN over to the article creator. I doubt it will be moved again. - X201 (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the date mix-up. I thought it said October 9, not 19. Are photos on Facebook from the same day enough to CSD them? I really believe that the uploader doesn't own the rights to those photos. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nyttend,

I'm contacting you because this is my first article and I need help to understand how Wikipedia works. I'm the Author of "Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/SpiderGraph chart", that I started 7 months ago and have rewritten 4 or 5 times and on 4/24 Rjd0060 deleted and on 4/25 you also deleted?? We were in the middle of an AfD discussion proposed on 3/27 by Glrx and I was in the middle of addressing all their comments and objections and when I went back to paste in another discussion response, the article was gone! I don't see how a decision to delete could be carried out, after I have proven all of their objections wrong and no decision has been made, that I know of?? Did you even read the discussions?

Previously, I had sent the following message to a friendly Reviewing Editor for her advice, but as yet, haven't received any reply:

Shearonink, 4/22/12, A Plea for Help and a FAVOR regarding: Articles for Deletion/SpiderGraph chart

Dear Shearonink,

During January & February, you were friendly and very helpful while my article was in AfCreation! I forget the date, but at some point, I wrote you about someone seemingly wanting to put notches on their belt & trying to establish a Kingdom?? I forget the exact way I phrased it??

Mabdul, declined my article on 1/22, I made his changes and tried to clear up his incorrect assumptions with a 2 page response on 1/23. Mabdul replied on 1/24 and also asked his friend CharlieEchoTango to join in. My 1/31 response to them, mentioned the "Six (6) Comments" section of the article using other user sources (which I believe Mabdul later deleted) and also the "impartial comparisons" from other sources to address their COI comment and to answer Charlie's WP:NOT comment, I found WP:NOT#DICT (#2), that proves this article to be Very Notable per a Wikipedia Policy, which is also mentioned in this discussion.

Around Feb. 23rd, my article went public! On Feb. 24th, Chap, the Ripper did a Major Overhaul & Removal of most of my article. It was almost unrecognizable. I almost gave-in to his intimidation, but I didn't want it to reflect bad on WP, so I rewrote the article for the 4th or 5th time, around 3/12.

No new tags were placed on the article for almost 2 months, but the old Tags from early Feb. remained on top of the article. I thought someone had just forgotten to remove them. I thought all the hurdles had passed!

On 3/27/12, I received a notice that my article had been Proposed for Deletion by Nominator Glrx, which I answered on 3/31/12, with a 6 page Objection to Deletion reply, because all the accusations sounded like he hadn't even read the article or didn't understand it! Glrx, a PhD in Philosophy, hit me again on 4/3/12 with more of the same:WP:N, DUE, NOR, NPOV, & COI, and again on 4/9, with 11 more items. However, I proved all of his assumptions incorrect in my 4/10/12, 8 page reply!

Also on 4/3/12, Gene93k Added a Note Stating that "this debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions."

So Far, everyone that has come forth to vote for deletion, sounds like they never read the SG or Radar chart articles and maybe not the discussion either. I feel like I'm being Sandbagged for a Speedy Deletion by a tag team of kids! I try to spell everything out for them to clarify or correct their incorrect assumptions or accusations, but I guess their vote still stands?? Today, I spent all day writing a reply to Jorgath (a 26 yr old, non-technical, college student) & Livitup.

IF YOU HAVE THE TIME, please do me a favor and read over the deletion discussions and see what you think They all seem in a big hurry to hang the article & me out to dry and I don't know why. I just want to get on with my life! When you read my answers, you will see that this article is very Notable! It looks to me like, no matter what I say or do, they intend to go ahead with the Deletion.. As you read the discussions, I believe you'll see that there is definitely no COI.

End of message to Shearonink

4/27 PS to Rjd0060: I was going to file a Grievance, stating Admin Abuse to Glrx and request an undo, but didn't because I noticed that he didn't delete the article, even though he has been extremely prejudice and unwavering. Have you ever performed any informal mediations? Is there anything you can do to help me?

4/28 PS to Nyttend: I'm not sure what the difference is, other than Ryan deleted "SpiderGraph chart" on 4/24 and you deleted "User:GregLChest/SpiderGraph chart" on 4/25?? However, after reading your User page, I feel much safer in your hands! Because I'm from Mt. Vernon, Ohio and have lived in Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton too. I'm copying everything to you, that I sent to Rjd0060 yesterday, because until now, I didn't know about you?? Maybe you can help me instead? I'm also going to read "Why was the page I created deleted?" as you suggested.

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester (GregLChest@aol.com) Gregory L. Chester 23:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

Hi Nyttend. I'd like to take another shot at this article. I will trim it up and make sure it's not a copyvio, but if you could help me by moving what was there to my userspace, that would make my work a lot easier. Thank you. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campus of Kyushu University. Please copy editing for grammar, cohesion, tone for Campus of Kyushu University.

I do have a vandalism userbox on my page but it's updating my vandalism userbox is starting to get annoying and I lose track so I just put "many" as the number of times my page got vandalized. If you see my userpage you will see a userbox that reads "this userpage has been vandalized many times" NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 16:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You reject the speedy move that I requested, so I have started a discussion. Feel free to improve consensus if you can. --George Ho (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes ... nowadays, with RevDel, it's called the suppression log. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you not recognize a User:JarlaxleArtemis sock when you see one? NawlinWiki (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your long and good work as an editor. I am not an experienced editor but I see that you have deleted the page of an organization I have worked with. As a member of the DC Cancer Consortium, I was surprised to see you classify Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund's entry as A7. Their patient booklet and health professional material on Ductal Carcinoma in Situ are widely used in Washington, D.C. What kind of information needs to be added? Lednarb (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The page First Asquith ministry needs to be moved to Liberal Government 1905–1915, as it does not just cover Asquith ministry, but also those of Henry Campbell-Bannerman. Thanks. RGloucester (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It was moved, because the intention was to split the article into two separate ones on each PM. But after having devised a new naming scheme at Talk:List of British governments, we’ve decide to leave these two merged. Thank you for your assistance. By the way, you used a hyphen instead of n dash in the title. Could you please move it again, using an n dash, to comply with WP:AT? Here is an n dash title for you: Liberal Government 1905–1915 RGloucester (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am the author of The Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund which you deleted and marked as "A7." I gather from previous feedback that there were copyright issues, which I thought were being discussed on the talk page, but no one responded to me prior to your deletion. I had added an in-line citation for the mission statement, which was similar to that on the organization's website. I found out about the organization when my aunt was diagnosed with cancer--the materials they provided to her were impressive, and I was surprised they did not have a wikipedia page when I told other family members about the Cancer Fund. I would like to resubmit the article, so please let me know how you suggest I fix the issues to prevent it from being deleted again.

Thank you! Ldenhard (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I hope it's okay I stop by. I've created and nom'd for DYK my first NRHP article since my return, Eagle's Store. I thought you may like to check it out and improve it. I think there's a place to post it at WP:NRHP but I don't recall where. Best wishes. PumpkinSky talk 23:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Very kind of you.PumpkinSky talk

• Bozeman National Fish Hatchery, another new NRHP one.PumpkinSky talk 02:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Have correct.

Obrigado pela dica. Já corrigi. RmSilva ^{can talk!} 22:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually the article Gre-Nal should be called Grenal, as in Portuguese Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Melo da Silva (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, I must admit I never check my user page, but if it could be indefinitely semi-protected it might encourage people to use my talk page instead, which I check more often. . .Mean as custard (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Talk:Woodleigh_School,_North_Yorkshire.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Talk:Woodleigh_School,_North_Yorkshire#Two_issues_now_at_the_Reliable_sources_noticeboard.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hi, Thanks for intervening. These are regarding the persistent edits done by the series of ip addresses to delete factual contents. I am listing out the information for your reference to make an educated decision.

• Harmohan Patnaik >> Well known revoltionary from that area... mention present in Dhenkanal (princely_state)
• Devendra Satpathy>> She was married to Devendra Satpathy who was twice the Member of Parliament(MP) from Dhenkanal.
• Nandini Satpathy>> Ex. Chief Minister... wiki page exists
• Brig. Kamaksha Prashad Singh Deo >> Member of Parliament multiple times
• Baishnab Charan Patnaik
• Surendra Mohan Patnaik
• Braja Kisore Dhal
• Suparno Satpathy >> There is a wiki page for him too. Suparno Satpathy
• Sudhir Kumar Samal
• Nabin Chandra Narayan Das (Member of Legislative Assembly)
• Prafulla Kumar Bhanja
• Justice D. N. Patnaik
• Haladhar Mishra (MLA- Member of Legislative Assembly)
• Kalpana Dash --- has wiki page Kalpana Dash

The activities by the ip address included...deletion of the names of "Devendra Satpathy", "Nandini Satpathy", "Suparno Satpathy" from the list; and removal of wiki links for "Nandini Satpathy" and "Tathagata Satapathy". Changing of name of "Tathagata" to "Tata". And insertion of "Samant Suryanarayan Patnaik", "Prasanna Kumar Patnaik", "Jitendra Kumar Patnaik"; who are of unknown importance.

These changes are coming across a range of ips... and is pretty difficult to single out one to report out. However the origination point is the same.

• netname: TATACOMM-IN
• descr: Internet Service Provider
• descr: TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP,

Also to let you know, other editors have pitched in to undo these changes but we have a person who is pretty adamant on doing that.

The criteria listed to be a part of Notable persons about not only having a wiki page is not correct... pages can be created by other contributing editors and a visible invitation may be created by making the links "red"... and some do indeed have wiki pages, possibly this was overlooked for the IP editor also deleted the wiki links... some of them are notable freedom fighters... some politicians (Member of Pariliament or Member of Legislative Assembly)...

I am sorry that I don't have that much time to bring out details for each of them, but the listed names were all proper and valid, whereas deletion of wiki links, names of prominent people being deleted and unknown persons being listed is not good. I have left message on the talk page on those ip addresses seeking the rationale behind those edits but am yet to get a response.

I am putting the information back (with some wiki links) and would request you to please let me know about what can we do to prevent this user from making further changes.

Thanks, --Karan1974 (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Content like this needs be be sourced. Especially anything having to do with living persons. As such, I will remove entries without Wikipedia articles. I encourage you to add them in only after notability has been proven. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, Thanks for your comments. I presume you missed the point. The people I have listed out are the notable ones belonging to that region and of Orissa. For e.g. Harmohan Patnaik is a notable freedom fighter and reference are brought out in the another wiki article. A google search also brings out a lot of references on him. Also for "Brig. Kamaksha Prashad Singh Deo", he has been a Member of Parliament multiple times (listed towards the bottom part of the article "Politics" section and a quick google search also shows that), and as per notability guidelines of Wiki, a politician can be deemed to be a notable person. Other persons listed also fall into the category of Member of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly. Your point is also valid to a degree that if we have wiki articles then they should be listed but also we can have the names and people can be encouraged to create the apt wiki articles. I will suggest that we have the names and focus more on how to prevent the IP editors from disrupting the article. Thanks.--Karan1974 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, you can't have the names without having proof they're notable in the article. Readers are not expected to search for this proof. A wiki article, while obviously desired, is not needed. Simply add the references you've found proving notability beside each name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. Would need your advise here. Can I list out the external links and the reference in other wiki articles against their names ? Thanks.--Karan1974 (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page to avoid cluttering up Nyttend's talk tage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, my apologies beforehand... don't want to clutter your talk page more... Wanted to let you know that I have populated the list and have given reference to the external sites... most of them are Government sites. Please let me know if that would be ok. Thanks.--Karan1974 (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the usual standard is that they must either show the notability by having an article about them in Wikipedia, or be obviously qualified to have one. In case there is doubt whether someone would be qualified, the best way of testing it is to try to write an article about them. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hiya... I added a declined to that one; not trying to step on toes or anything, just wanted to get it out of the backlog, since it seemed highly unlikely anything would come of it. Obviously if you end up seeing something, feel free to take action, of course. :P Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 05:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you previously clarified an IBAN issue as uninvolved at ANI. Yet it is in a vio report now. I've made a reference to your clarification, can you take a look? WP:ANI#IBAN violation. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello! After your request at the deletion discussion page, I just came to let you know that the page has been deleted by me following the standard procedure.

If you have any further inquiries, please feel free to contact me on either my en.wiki or my it.wiki talk page. --Mark91it's my world 23:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please I'm begging, just for now, please leave the content of the page alone, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about revisions to the notability guidelines that you are welcome to join, but that change could be interpreted differently by different editors, not toe mention socks,meats,etc. We will have new guidelines for RfC shortly.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, it's just an awful situation and keeps getting stalled by little things.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User Lui1721 is a sockpuppet of Lui2021. This editor has made unnecessary changes, such as the duplicate creation of an already-existing article, as well as changing the title for all the actors/actresses appearing in that telenovela. Platinum Star (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

He restored it again... Platinum Star (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested speedy deletion and reported him for socking Here Darkness Shines (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Your quick action is undeniably the best. There are a few other IP addresses that have a strong connection to Lui2021 as (s)he mainly edits articles related to Abismo de pasion and actors/actresses appearing in that telenovela. Should I report the IPs as well? Platinum Star (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

But I can still present proof that Lui2021 and 1721 are the same, right? (not sure if I'm allowed to do so) His/her contributions should be more than enough to prove that his/her focus (apparently) is editing anything related to AdP. Platinum Star (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Depends, if he is on a dynamic range your best bet is if you are sure it is him revert and request page protection. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Reporting another sockpuppet account. Platinum Star (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Pls see this. It says the Lehrkind Mansion is a NRHP, as do some sites, but I can't find it in the official db nor the Elkman one. It's now a B&B. I discovered this while working on User:PumpkinSky/Spieth and Krug Brewery. Can you help? I'd appreciate it. PumpkinSky talk 11:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, maybe it's part of "Bozeman Brewery Historic District"? PumpkinSky talk 12:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, very nice of you.PumpkinSky talk 13:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#La_Costa.
Message added 23:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• The missing edits were at La Costa (disambiguation). Any way you can place every edit from here backwards back onto La Costa to reverse the cut and paste move? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like you got it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for incorrect tagging. Actually I was going through my upload log and saw that these non-free images are no more used anywhere so tagged them all for deletion without looking the history that after my upload they were once deleted and again uploaded. Thanks for the undoing my edits. --SMS ^Talk 13:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

thank you for getting involved, nyttend. i totally agree with you. the highly contentious content was forced into the article by user ankmorpork and user shrike by an edit war. they have no consensus. i have started a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard here, [4].-- altetendekrabbe  13:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "British Pakistanis". Thank you. -- altetendekrabbe  13:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to this being a redirect (per the AfD) ... but the existing target does not exist. The content that used to be at that target is now at List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes#Film. This is also the most recent redirect that had existed at that page prior to it again being recreated.

As you were the one to reset the current redirect target then to protect the page, I wanted to discuss with you rather than making the change directly myself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Why the mass reverts of 98.255.17.246? His numbers that I checked our were correct. Not cited, but then neither were the numbers that he replaced, so still a net improvement to the articles. Seems needlessly BITEy. Toohool (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok... and that same cite to American FactFinder gives you the 2010 numbers that the IP was listing. Toohool (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. The point is, verifiability policies shouldn't be used as an excuse to undo edits that are improving the encyclopedia, when you know very well where the information can be found. Anyway, "the 2010 census" is a cite, even if it's not in a convenient link format. Toohool (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello--I was the one who made these edits. I finally dug up my login information--I haven't been loggging into Wikipedia when making edits because I often misplace login information along with that of many other websites and don't want to take the time to dig it up. I strongly agree with Toohool that the reversion was unnecessary. The edits were accurate and were an improvement on the page. There was little consistency between the articles I edited in terms of how population was referenced. You provided an article that suggests citing with a ref tag in the info box. That's fine and can be done in the future, but that was something that had not been done in many of the articles I updated, and so was not obvious. Insetad of checking the numbers, or using the fact that the 2010 census IS arguably a cite as Toohool notes, you chose to revert. I think there might have been better ways of handling this than the reversion. If you can please reverse the reversion (I really have no idea--I am a novice wikipedian at best), I can try to be more diligent about following your verifiability guidelines. Thanks! --SamSellers (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend--thanks for the note. So by sourced, is an internal link to the 2010 Census acceptable, or does the source have to consist of an external link?--SamSellers (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey--I was wondering if you might be able to revert the reversions you did on the edits I made under the IP address? You mentioned that you did so in the message you sent, but I haven't seen it (perhaps I just missed it). For instance, Togiak, Alaska, Chester Heights, Pennsylvania, and Manhattan, Montana, among many, were reverted and haven't yet been reversed. Thanks! --SamSellers (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

All the socks discovered are already locked by the stewards. In other words, whatever was actionable has already been performed and these accounts will not be able to edit at all. - Mailer Diablo 08:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I've been seeing you around quite often, both here and on Commons. Thanks for doing so much for the betterment of....... everybody, I suppose. Chevsapher (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend, I've revewrsed this back to semi-protection (which definitely should stay on) as I really can't see any discussion of your rationale for protecting. If I missed something please let me know, or comment at talk. Thanks & regards! Franamax (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

We could use your help at User_talk:PumpkinSky#DYK_nomination_of_Eagle.27s_Store. I'd appreciate it. PumpkinSky talk 15:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks.PumpkinSky talk 20:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Pls see one issue left beginning with the post at 21:04 UTC. Thanks.PumpkinSky talk 21:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarified the question, basically. The NRHP db says built 1927 but it really took three stages from 1927-1930 so do we put that in the infobox, just 1927, or just 1930? PumpkinSky talk 09:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In may talk page there is a notification that the page Lorenzo Ramero was nominated for deletion, and indeed it appears deleted. I do not have hold of its contents, but I strongly disagree with its deletion. Lorenzo Ramero is a well known contemporary mathematician, among his achievements note that he is an author of a major research monograph in algebraic geometry together with Ofer Gabber: Almost Ring Theory, Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1800. Zoran.skoda (talk)

	Historic Places
	Thank you for visiting National Historic Places and taking expert care of them in this project, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll certainly let you know; thanks for your interest! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please restore this page which you deleted to my user-space: the company does deserve an article and I'd like to see what was deleted. Thanks. – Smyth\^talk 07:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. – Smyth\^talk 12:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please restore the page The Idiom Magazine. In the talk page, I clearly explained that I would fix any of the issues and replied promptly to the user that tagged the page for deletion. So please replace the page so i can at least copy it into my sandbox for editing. Or direct editing. I found this to be out of line, espcially with my obvious attention to concerns as soon as they popped up. Thank you for your timely repsone and in advance for restoring the page. --jpetrolinoiii (talk) 1007, 23 May 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

Hey. Would it be a problem if you could temporarily lock this article? I reverted twice (within reason as explained in the edit summaries) and unless I want to receive a warning for breaking the 3-revert rule, I'm not willing to take the risk. The IP editor has been vandalizing the article by posting incorrect info. Un refugio para el amor will air tonight at 7pm central on Univision, but the editor thinks it belongs in current programming, but it shouldn't be that way until the first episode airs on the network. Univision has aired 106 episodes of La que no podia amar, but he "thinks" it'll end in August. Again, an estimate falls under "prediction/speculation" which is unsourced. I'm going to revert it as unsourced tomorrow after 24 hrs pass by. My apologies in advance. Platinum Star (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hopefully the editor won't persist. Platinum Star (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I just wanted to get in touch and see if there was anything that I could do to restore Safetray to Wikipedia? I understand the reasoning behind its deletion, but I do still believe that the product meets the criteria for notability, given the extensive articles profiling it and its creator in British national newspapers such as The Times and The Scotsman. I realise that I may not have cited these as well as I should have - I can provide more extensive citations, including page numbers etc, if the article is restored.

I deliberately chose my own name as my username as I didn't want to be dishonest about my involvement with the company, and I was careful to write it in what I thought was an objective way. If I were to rewrite the article solely to talk about the product itself as opposed to including information about Safetray Products Ltd would that be helpful? And to remove links to unrecognised sources? I can confirm that all the sources I listed were external to ourselves, and not from press releases, etc, but am happy to clean up and only use more noteable sources such as those given above.

I have removed all information about the Wikipedia page from our website and various social media platforms, because to be perfectly honest, I had put them up because I was excited that I'd managed to write my first Wikipedia article and got a bit carried away. It didn't occur to me that I was using Wikipedia as advertising, and I do apologise about that. It was never my intention to "brag" about cheating the system, as seems to have been the judgment passed on me in the discussion of deletion.

Unfortunately I missed that there was a discussion going on regarding my article, or I would have raised these points at the time, or made appropriate edits to try and deal with the issues to some extent. I am very sorry if I have caused offence to the Wikipedia community, as seems to be the case, it was entirely unintentional and born of my enthusiasm for browsing Wikipedia in general and my excitement at finally having something I thought was worthwhile to bring to the table in particular. I would like to ask for the article to be moved back to my sandbox so that I can work on it further, and hopefully pass the merit test in future. Or is it hopeless given my connection to the company? Please do let me know. Carolinewhitham (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Carolinewhitham

Thank you very much for your response, I will follow your advice and will be in touch soon. Carolinewhitham (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Carolinewhitham

Don't worry, by the way, I definitely didn't take it as a punishment and I genuinely do appreciate the help and guidance! As a newbie there's a lot to learn and I'm still finding my feet, but everyone I've spoken with so far has been incredibly kind and supportive. Carolinewhitham (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Carolinewhitham

Hi Nyttend, I've rewritten the Safetray page on | my sandbox as you suggested, and was hoping you might have a look to see whether you think it's OK? I've tried to stick to information purely relevant to the product rather than the company, and also have included only noteable sources, plus one of our youtube vidoes. It would be fab if you could let me know whether you think it's ready for upload to the wiki, or if there's more work to be done, and if you could point me in the right direction to correct anything that's wrong? Carolinewhitham (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Carolinewhitham

Thank you so much for all your help, you've been very patient and kind. I really do appreciate it! Carolinewhitham (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Carolinewhitham

Hi Nyttend, sorry to bother you again, just wanted a bit of quick advice - I wasn't sure whether I should get involved with the 'delete' discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safetray? I could defend the notability of the references - I have checked the rules on sources and we aren't in breach of them that I can see - but I'm worried about provoking argument uneccesarily and possibly drawing others into the discussion in support of deletion. What do you think? Carolinewhitham (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Carolinewhitham

Hi, I noticed you have recently edited the Jerry Macaluso article. There has been an IP that has been constantly removing "promotional" information and adamantly wants the article deleted or merged. could you please reply to their section on the talk page of the article, input from a more experienced editor will surely help. Thanks, GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 15:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend, I have today made a long over due edit that expanded the lead to properly summarize the article. I know you have a lot of experience with articles on cities and towns. If you have a moment could you look at the new lead and see if I have done a proper job representing the article in a neutral fashion? Thanks in advance. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look and cleaning up the city/town thing. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry that I couldn't give a response, but I was on a quick work break. I'd advise you to reduce the amount of demographic information in the lead, but other than that, more information would be warranted. I can't give you a bright line for how much should be in the intro, but when the article is this long, it just doesn't seem sufficient to have an intro of the current length. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, just saw another thing — quotations probably aren't good in the intro. To me, quotations don't seem right in the intro unless they're really important (e.g. the quotations themselves get coverage), so I'd advise you instead to use your own words there. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Dupe article by yours truly... Abismo de Pasión. I'm going to revert all of his edits as they redirect to that duplicate article. Platinum Star (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that he'll come back to start that craziness again. But I should also point out that he's targeting Un refugio para el amor (as an IP editor). He posted another machine translated synopsis and I removed it. I'd keep an eye on that too. Platinum Star (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In January 2010 you deleted the article Andrew Ledford as an expired prod. Unfortunately, whoever placed that prod didn't bother to leave a heads-up on my talk page, and I only became aware of the deletion now.

Normally I would request userification to User:Geo Swan/userified 2012-05/Andrew Ledford. If you think the prod placer's concern is unconvincing I'll request that here. If, on the other hand, you think the claim has some merit can you email me the last version I edited, and the final version of the article as well, if there is a marked difference? Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Clarification please -- did you mean me to understand you were also declining to email the source text of this article to me?

The nominator claimed the article was "slightly slanderous" in light of an innocence verdict.

I try to be careful to write using a neutral voice. I would like to think that if I drafted material prior to a verdict coming in, I would have made it appropriate for either a guilty or an innocent verdict. If you genuinely agree with the nominator that I genuinely lapsed, then I suggest it would be reasonable for me to see the text, as there might be a lesson for me to learn. Geo Swan (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Another quick reply.

You wrote: "my decline is based on the fact that I don't see any way for this subject to qualify for an article". So, can I ask you -- do you think there is a WP:CSD criteria that matches your explanation? Because I think you have written something extraordinary.

Rather than saying that you merely think the last draft of the article lapsed from policy, you seem to be saying you think Andrew Ledford is a topic that can never be covered in a policy compliant way, so the wikipedia shouldn't cover it.

My first encounter with the wikipedia's deletion policies was in September 2005. I had approximately 2000 edits under my belt then, and had been contributing for just under a year. Four articles I started on Guantanamo captives were nominated for deletion in a single day. Those voicing delete opinions were using cryptic terms, like "NN", which they wouldn't explain. One contributor, who I didnt know was considered a highly respected "vandal fighter" in certain circles, wrote something similar to what you wrote here. She wrote that the entire topic of Guantanamo was "inherently POV" and any article related to Guantanamo would only be used as an excuse for "America-bashing".

Even though I was a newbie I thought I knew our core policies better than that. It seemed to me then, and still seems to me now, that topics themselves can't be biased. It is only how topics are represented that can be biased or neutral.

It seemed to me then that there is no topic so controversial that it couldn't be covered neutrally, if those working on it made enough effort. The only thing I would add to what I wrote in 2005 was "given sufficient good references". (Both the wikipedia's standards and my own standards as to what kind of references are required have matured over the last 7 years.)

I am going to repeat that I am strongly convinced that there is no topic that was inherently POV, no topic that can't be covered neutrally, with enough effort.

• Thank you for clipping the references from that article. If I understood your intent you clipped them in case, against your advice, I thought the topic of Andrew Ledford could be covered. There are lots of good references about Ledford. Suppose I made the effort to start over, from scratch, is there any reason for me to assume I would not innocently make whatever lapse you think I made the first time? I suggest that there is not. I ask you to consider that by choosing not to make the original text available to me you are asking me to guess at where you think I lapsed.

• There is advice to contributors who think they have written something interesting and worthwhile, who have had that material deleted after a discussion over whether it was in scope. They are advised to consider contributing it to another wiki. Contributors are encouraged to consider whether material that isn't within the scope of the english language wikipedia might be within the scope of a sibling project within the WMF. Contributors are encouraged to consider whether material that isn't within the scope of the English language wikipedia or any other WMF project might nevertheless be within the scope of a non WMF project. I suspect most people ignore this advice, or are unaware of it. But I have ported my contributions from here to other wikis.

We surrender various intellectual property rights when we contribute material to the wikipedia. We retain other rights. Wikipedia contributors are entitled to have their contributions attributed to them. Wikipedia contributors remain entitled to re-use their contributions elsewhere and claim authorship of any contributions for which they are the sole author of intellectual content.

• You haven't said, "I am personally sympathetic to Ledford, and I suspect you are not, so I won't return to you material you contributed, even if you retain important intellectual property rights, because I want to screw up any efforts you might make to use it elsewhere." So I shouldn't react as if you had said that.

Having pointed out that I retain intellectual property rights to the material you have declined to email me, you could tell me something like "I am not preventing you from re-using any material you first contributed here. Just go back and look up the private copy you kept on your computer. Or failing that find some other administrator who is willing to be more helpful."

Keeping private copies? This is wildly impractical on a cooperative project. I might make half a dozen, a dozen, or maybe even dozens of edits to an article before someone else weighs in. I have no idea when someone else is going to weigh in. Should I save a private copy of every article after every edit I make I have started thousands of articles. It is not practical for me to try to save private copies after every edit I make. And frankly, if I can count on the wikipedia administrators setting an example of collegial cooperation, I don't think I should feel any need to keep private copies of my contributions. I think my request to be emailed the source text of the last version of the article for which I was the sole intellectual contributor was a reasonable one.

• I mentioned WP:CSD above. I just re-read it. Prods are usually restored. Administrators are authorized to delete material they think meets one or more criteria for speedy deletion. So, I think we agree that if someone asks to have an article deleted through prod restored, but the administrator in question thinks the article meets a speedy delete criteria, they shouldn't restore it -- at least not to article space.

If the administrator thought it required an explicit claim of notability then userification so the other party can add that explicit claim would be reasonable.

So, is it G10 you think applies? You wrote:

"I'm declining to email it because the subject is a BLP1E. It's slightly slanderous because the weight of the article was on the allegations throughout its history, not because it was lying about him..."

Forgive me, but this doesn't sound like G10 to me. G10 says

"These "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced."

You didn't claim the article was unsourced. You didn't claim it was intended "purely to harass". You didn't claim it was "entirely negative in tone".

I am in a very difficult position here. I try very hard to comply with all policies. I know I work on more controversial topics than most contributors, so I try to make more of an effort to fully comply with our policies. I don't expect to succeed 100 percent of the time. I do my best to openly acknowledge when I realize I lapsed. If I really lapsed from policy I want to see for myself. If I can see for myself I may recognize you are correct that I lapsed. And if it is a lapse I never realized was a lapse before, I can put it on my list of things to avoid. That can't happen if I don't get to see the text that you see as a lapse.

If you allow me access to the text I may not agree I lapsed. You are still an administrator, while I am not. I generally defer to the advice of administrators who live up to their obligation to set an example of civility and collegiality. If you said, I will userify this material, but I advise you not to re-use it, in article space, at least not without discussing it with me, I would comply with that. I would not try to re-use any of this material in article space, without discussing it with you, even if you didn't think you could explain how the material lapsed from G10. For all I know I might look at the material and not want to re-use any of it.

I think, if our positions were reversed, and the concern with the material was only one of subtle tone, I would find it very hard to justify not userifying the article. If our positions were reversed, and the concern was a genuine full G10, or came close to a genuine full G10, I would find it hard to justify not sending the source text by email -- because the contributor retains important intellectual property rights -- in particular they retain the right to re-use their intellectual content elsewhere. Geo Swan (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Nytend, Geo asked me to comment. I can of course deal with it directly , by mailing it to him, but I think you are wrong here. Expired prods are always restored, because anyone could have stopped the prod if they had noticed.

The only way you could refuse to do it is if you knew it was copyvio or G10, or unambiguous met some other speedy deletion criterion. And if you had thought that, you were wrong to do the deletion as an expired prod, you should have done it as speedy. Perhaps looking more carefully at the article, you think you should have done it. It would clarify things if you said whether or not you thought it was the case.

But even with speedy, I can not imagine ever refusing to mail back even a speedied article to the guy who wrote it, though I certainly have refused to do so to a third party if it is copyvio. I might say that for G10 also, but I haven't been asked.

This would be a relatively difficult case for deletion review, because I think the argument would go that no harm is done by deleting it via prod, because AfD would probably delete it. I don't like that argument at deletion review, and have almost always argued against it, because if it isn't a speedy, a person has the right to try.As we keep saying at DRev, it isn't AfD2. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for leaving your opinion DGG. I agree that if the justification is G10, I'd prefer Nyttend explicitly said so. I continue to find Nyttend's decision to decline to email me this material mystifying. Geo Swan (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend, I started a section at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).

I didn't mention your name there, or the name of the deleted article, as I would prefer the discussion to be about the general principle, as to whether administrators should rely on policies that only apply here on this project to deny contributors the ability to re-use their content on other projects. If you choose to weigh in there I request you consider also confining yourself to the general principle of when administrators should decline good faith requests like mine. If you choose to try to explain this particular decision more fully, could you leave that justification here?

I did raise this issue above, and it seems to me you skipped addressing it in your last comments on my talk page.

Note, in order to make this discussion more readable, in futute, for myself or anyone else who tries to follow this discussion, I have included diffs to the comments you left on my talk page. I understand you want messages for you left on your talk page as you don't watchlist other people's talk pages. I will be looking on your talk page, first, for replies to any comment I leave you. Personally, it would be a lot more convenient for me, and I suggest for other readers, if you left any further replies here. Geo Swan (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

(comment copied from GS's talk page) So you want this for non-WP purposes? I never realised that, and I'm sorry; if you said it in your third message on my talk page, I missed it because of the sheer size of the message, and the same is true of declining to answer the second "general principle". I thought you were planning to use it to recreate an article here. I will not immediately email you the text, but only because I'm about to leave the house. Please check your email periodically throughout the day; if I do not email it to you by tonight, blame it on forgetfulness and leave another note telling me that I forgot. Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what this weird number in this NRHP is: User:PumpkinSky/Camp Paxson Boy Scout Camp (24MO77)? Also looking for more sources on the Scout part of it (lots on the smokejumper part), and a free photo.PumpkinSky talk 19:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

one follow up ? there. PumpkinSky talk 23:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend, can you be so kind as to keep an eye on User:Samuraiantiqueworld again? He is now removing reflinks he doesn't like from many horse tack articles such as saddle and horse harness. He also is messing up the categories on horse tack; some of his initial attempts to reorganize that material was helpful, and he spotted some stuff that is an awkward fit, but he doesn't know or understand the topic and also has a personal vendetta against me, so anything I do to clean up after him invites an immediate attack as well as a bunch of WP:ASK behavior in other areas. I do not have the time to do the fixes he demands, nor do I have any interest in his eternal edit-warring. So just asking for extra eyes. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 21:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Nyttend, there are two sides to every story, my side is that I removed references that are invalid for use in Wikipedia articles, I asked for an independent opinion on the validity of this type of reference on the appropriate notice board Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 123 before I removed the references, I in return have a belief that Montanabw may have mistaken "ownership" for "stewardship". Please take a look here User_talk:Good_Olfactory, I resent being called a "vandal" or the suggestion that my well intentioned edits are "vandalism" in any form. Montanabw has repeatedly reverted edits on a whole range of horse related articles to the point that other editors are reluctant to edit these articles and categories, this has had a detrimental effect on these articles, the actions of Montanabw have been noticed by other editors [whip] and [saddle], I do not want to continue to constantly fight for the right to edit a horse related article. Here is a quote by Montanabw which I thinks sums up the entire problem ("Well, not to put too fine a point on it, I am a horse expert.") from yet another conflict. User_talk:Intothatdarkness.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend, I do not understand your reversion of the edits I made on Saddle, the type of references I removed are clearly not valid for use on Wikipedia and I confirmed this on the appropriate notice board, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 123, these edits are clearly not "vandalism", can you explain your decision to allow these references to remain in use as I am confused here. Some of the references seem to be commercial web sites with un-referenced information being used as Wikipedia references, this is certainly not appropriate as far as I know, thanks Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the above proves my point. This is a longstanding pattern of Samurai editing without any collaboration with others and attacking, often viciously, anyone who disagrees with him. You don't just mindlessly remove references, you collaborate with the process, or better yet, get off your duff and find better sources that support the material. I have generally not delved into Samurai's articles on Japanese military antiques, other than the ones on saddles and stirrups, as he has expertise in that area (Japanese antique military equipment) and I do not (my area is horses and horse equipment generally) and I would appreciate a little courtesy on the horse articles in return. Oh, I was thinking "ask the other parent" per WP:FORUMSHOP. Montanabw^(talk) 16:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Much of the info belongs in summary/synopsis section, even though there's none. It's too cluttered in my opinion, and I removed the unnecessary "Warning—spoiler alert!" disclaimer twice (reverted by that editor). Should I restore the previous version or use the tag seen here? My apologies in advance for the excessive/unneeded corrections.Platinum Star (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I wish to have the restoration of the Church of São Mateus da Calheta article, as I originally restored it recently. From the my talk page you will see the conservation I had with another user regarding this issue. The use of the artcile "Church of São Mateus (Calheta)" was an error on my part, which I attempted to reverse manually. Using the guidelines in Wikipedia Portuguese geography as a template, the name reversion implies that the Church of São Mateus refers to a church in the civil parish of Calheta, rather then the São Mateus de Calheta (on the island of Terceira). I request that the Church of São Mateus da Calheta be restored as the valid article title for this subject. ^{ruben jc}ZEORYMER (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Compare with Jinan, Ji'nan (unnecessary), Xian (dead wrong), and Xi'an, and if you still don't understand the underlying mechanics, read pinyin. Takes care of half the issue (I frankly don't give a rat's ass about "Some don't understand why..."). The other half is taken care by the hatnote I added at Xinan, which also raises another problem: Your reversion obscures the many other entries at Xin'an, which, if were to be included at Xinan, would cause too much content overlap between disambiguation pages. Consider both the hatnote and the DAB fork the end to this dispute, once and for all. We have much better things to be doing than this. GotR ^Talk 09:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• ANI:user:samuraiantiqueworld and false claims of outing

Samuraiantiqueworld has mentioned you in a wall of text towards the (hopefully) bottom. FYI. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You gave the best wiki help desk response EVAR!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by First down comets (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Deserving of this for your presence here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No, but I've noticed you around a lot and you seem a cultured and highly intelligent chap!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Historically, I'm aware of your work and I'll break policy (mine) by letting you know you're on the secret list of User:Nobody Ent/above average admins. Your ANI comments, in the sense that they contributed to quickly and effectively dealing with a disruptive user, were not, are not, and will never be "meaningless." However, denying the an indef blocked user a soapbox should be the higher priority so I'd appreciate you re-removing Vurrgh's comments from ANI. Thanks. Nobody Ent 14:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to contribute information on Aix-en-Provence and its history to wikipedia, there are at least 30 books published recently, mostly in French but a few of them definitive guide books in English, that give encyclopedic detail. You have restored edits which are WP:OR and which cite sources that are from the early 19th century, or are only tangentially related to Aix-en-Provence or are synthesis from primary records of the DRAC. I am not quite sure why you chose to enable a banned user. That is a personal choice, of course. As far as I am aware, and you may corrcct me if I am wrong, I have an impeccable record on articles related to France and in particular Provence. You knew that disruptive sockpuppets were making mischief. You chose to ignore that. In restoring edits of trolling socks, you made no effort whatsoever to check any of the sources provided. In addition you posted a message on my talk page prior to the indefinite block of the sockpuppet whom you chose to enable. Please think twice next time if you want to edit on behalf of community banned editors. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. A small amount of background research on Aix-en-Provence and its history using proper sources (i.e. texts published fairly recently, of which there are many but mostly in French) reveals that there are a number of notable hotels particuliers in the quartier Mazarin. There are, however, no particularly notable ones on the rue Cardinale. Despite that most of the buildings there were built around 1660-1670, so are listed and some of them have had famous occupants. The most notable private residences in the quartier Mazarin are on rue 4 Septembre (for example the Olivary mansion or the Musee d'Arthaud) and also on the place des 4 Dauphins. The Musee Granet and the Church of St-Jean-de-Malte are both on the place St-Jean-de-Malte (the presbytery of the church is on rue d'Italie). Some of the hotels particuliers are mentioned in the main article on Aix. But if content is to be added on historic buildings, it would seem that the natural place to add them is in the article on the quartier Mazarin, with a careful account of the history. There are also many other interesting details that can be found in the sources. For example originally most of the even numbered houses were stables for the odd numbered houses on the adjacent streets. On the rue Roux-Alpheran some of the even numbered houses were lodgings for pilgrims. The 1846-1848 history is not really a suitable source: it's a primary source. Almost always modern sources are preferred. Where appropriate, they sometimes quote the earlier sources. In addition many street names have changed, e.g. the name rue Frederic Mistral is more recent than the 1846-1848 history. So if any material is to be added it should rely on proper modern sources. Some modern guide books in English give a limited number of details; but not very surprisingly the majority of detailed sources are in French and not usually consultable on the web. Personally I would not dream of writing an article on this region without purchasing one or two sources locally. That was the case for the Porte d'Aix in Marseille and equally well for the Chateau of Vauvenargues. Similarly on French cultural or historical matters: for Auguste Pavie, I used a book on French explorers written in French. In this particular case, I cannot see that any sensible kind of article could be written by just exploiting the web as attempted so far. Mathsci (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Where did you check the existence of "rue Victor Hugo"? If you had checked it carefullly, you would have noticed an error, since that is not the name of the road (which I crossed earlier tonight on my way back to my apartment on the rue Cardinale). So how exactly did you check it?

I will try to identify (or purchase) a proper set of detailed references for historic buildings in and the history of the quartier Mazarin. Perhaps, until you find a source which correctly identifies the name of the road on the Western end of the rue Cardinale, it might be a good idea for you not edit the article. There are two chapels next to the Lycee Mignet on rue Cardinale, one being formerly for penitents blancs. The Lycee Mignet itself had, as famous pupils, Paul Cezanne and Emil Zola, etc, etc. All of this can be found in modern sources. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It may help to note that the avenue Victor Hugo is a road well-known to Mathsci, and that is indeed what the source says. Mathsci admoits that he knows this perfectly well but he prefers to disrupt Wikipedia by removing well-sourced material to make a point. He has now decided to have Silver Starfish declared a banned user (against the clear evidence of a checkuser) in order to win this particular little battle. Collared Joists? (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogulus (talk • contribs)

There is this article: Camp Pendleton (Virginia). I noticed it already exists after I created this draft: User:PumpkinSky/Camp Pendleton-State Military Reservation Historic District. Should I keep the draft separate and focus on the NRHP part or make it part of (merge into) the existing article? I probably can't make the existing one a 5x expansion but I can easily get lots of photos.PumpkinSky talk 00:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Note how it's named here: National Register of Historic Places listings in Virginia Beach, Virginia PumpkinSky talk 00:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Updatae. I don't see how to make it a 5x without writing a long overly detailed NRHP section. But it's much better now.PumpkinSky talk 21:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The user whose edits you restored has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of the community banned user Echigo mole. His trolling and disruptive edits have been removed per WP:BAN. The reversion of his disruptive edits takes place without complaint on the talk pages of arbitrators or arbcom clerks. If you want to make an issue of it, that can be discussed on the administrators' noticeboard or directly with arbitrators. You do see to have a problem in coming to terms with the community banned editor Echigo mole. Can you deal with that privately, possibly discussing that with the checkusers? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Response to wikihounding". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophie Germaine (talk • contribs) 22:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

A little over a year ago, you made a good edit to a new article I'd created: Estacado, Texas edit. I refer to the part of the edit that is "in the U.S. state of Texas". I liked the style so much - it looks very professional - that I've used that style on all geographical articles I write. Is there a Wikipedia policy to back up this style? It's always good to be able to refer to a Wikipedia page. An unregistered editor made an edit, that was nothing more than cosmetic on that very issue. I reversed it. Should this come up again on any article, I'd like to have a Wikipedia reference to drop into my edit summary. Just in case. Maile66 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested: User_talk:Montanabw#Yogo_Gulch_NRHP xref Yogo sapphire, a current FAC.PumpkinSky talk 00:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

re a likely sock. Thanks, --OhioStandard (talk)

And again. --OhioStandard (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend - Could you take a look at the Scarborough, Maine page? It appears that you moved the text to Scarborough (town), Maine, but left a circular redirect from the previous article title. In fact, I'd like to request that you move the town article back to plain Scarborough, Maine. You changed it to "(town)" to distinguish from the CDP article, but in New England the CDPs are largely ignored and irrelevant. You will note that no other towns in Maine that have CDPs of the same name have a "(town)" disambiguator. In New Hampshire, we actually merged the CDP articles directly into the town articles, because the entire town is for all purposes the unit of recognition. I am unable to perform the move myself, and would rather see if you could do it than ask an administrator at random. Thanks. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Boing! said Zebedee's talk page.
Message added 19:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, You protected the article Micah True a couple days ago based on this AN3 report. I suppose I should first thank you for not blocking me, as that would have been a nasty surprise to wake up to, especially since I was only guilty of 2RR instead of 4RR as the report originally said.

Secondly, I think the article should be safe to unprotect now. I believe User:Hypesmasher and I have reached a compromise on our disagreement (discussion on the talk page, and also here in my sandbox) and things have generally cooled down.

Anyway, if you could please unprotect the article that would be great. I thought I'd ask you before I tried RPP. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. The article shouldn't have needed unprotection — I made a mistake. Except in cases of sustained edit warring among many people, I can't imagine intentionally giving indefinite full protection to any mainspace page, especially when there were no previous protections in the page's history. I meant to protect it for a day or two, so the protection should have expired without you having to ask me. Sorry for the error. Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the quick response. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I invite you to check improvements made to the Leonora Moore article. While she's not as overwhelmingly notable as an Oscar winner, nor is the article the "strongest" such on Wikipedia, it's better than what was first nominated and makes a reasonable assertion under WP:ENT. Now that the publicist's puppet accounts have been blocked, I think it serves the project to let it remain and grow over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi -- you blocked Kitty101423 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit warring, and s/he has now repeated the same edit [5]. Indef, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I did think about whether File:Fast Response Cutter.jpg could be useful on the commons. There are a couple of reasons why I think it wouldn't be.

1. The source page is 404.
2. Back in 2006, when I uploaded it, I am afraid I thought all images on federal government sites were going to be PD. I know better now, and wouldn't upload an image like this, without an explicit credit, as it could be a courtesy image, provided by the contractor, drawn by their artist. Without the source there is no way to check.
3. Back in 2006 artist's conceptions were all there were to look at, but the first vessel in this class is in commission, and I have already uploaded some very fine images.
4. The design, as built, is the second design, using standard components. The original design was to use carbon fiber, and other expensive cutting edge experimental technology. Thad Allen, the USCG Admiral who did a good job overseeing the clean up of Hurricane Katrina, was promoted to be OIC of the USCG, and he cleaned up the procurement of this class of vessels too. If we knew that this was explicitly an image of the earlier design, that would be quite useful. But with no source -- I don't think so.

And, having added in my doubts, due to my knowledge that I could have uploaded a non-free image, thinking it was free, and the lack of everything to populate the information template, I decided to request deletion, not move to commons.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hurried response: here's a page from the capitol website with a bit about it. Googling "warner legislative chamber" would probably turn up more information about current uses. Ammodramus (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Mathsci and Echigo Mole and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystone Crow (talk • contribs) 04:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me as if User:Pantsaklan understands the problems that led to their block now, and my feeling is that we can give them another chance. In the light of the discussion at User talk:Pantsaklan, would you be OK if I unblocked one of their accounts and left the other one indef blocked? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This article has been subjected to disruptive editing (refer to MegastarLV's comments). The editors have been adding info that the revival has happened when it hasn't. Megastar has reverted those edits, but it's not enough as these editors keep restoring info regarding a revival series that hasn't happened yet.

A duplicate article was created for no reason at all, but I created a redirect to the original article. Any thoughts about this problem? Platinum Star (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the revival page to Figure It Out is a good idea and that you guys were wrong about deleting the page. I enjoyed creating and editing the page like it was my own rightful page. --Kennster2012 (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend,

I have been working on my first article for Wikipedia, and have been excited at the prospect of its publication. Your recent reply to me advises that it has been deleted because it appears to infringe copyright as being a cut and paste from http://www.ballyhannon-castle.com/history.htm

I posted some questions to your volunteers, and Houn and ukexpat very kindly and swiftly replied to me with how I go about obtaining the permission of the copyright owner to the publication of his work (as is posted on http://www.ballyhannon-castle.com/history.htm), and to contact you for the text of the most recent article which you appear to have deleted.

I am now liaising with the copyright owner, Martin Breen whom I know personally (he is a local historian), and hopefully he will today email you the necessary authorisation/license under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA).

In the meantime, as I mentioned, I am looking for the most recent text (probably, as Houn said, will be in wiki-code as opposed to full HTML). This is because I have spent many days reading your editing and formatting procedures, and posting the article in the correct format for approval, but I see that it seems to have been permanently deleted (or at least it is not visible in 'my contributions'). As I really could not afford the same amount of time writing, editing and formatting it again, I would really appreciate if you could be emailed the full wiki-coded text of my most recent submission, so that I can either pass it on to Mr. Breen for him to attend to, or I can at least save it on my pc until such time as you have approved its submission.

Many thanks for all your volunteers' help to date. You've been very good indeed. CorneliusWilliam (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I recently learned that you deleted my username and page. I don't know why you did this. Please explain why. What did I ever do to you? I know that I have been very angry at Anthony Bradbury for deleting a page that I made and have been told not to keep talking to him because his deletion decision is final. However, I am a citizen of the United States and have freedom of speech. I came to your talk page because I couldn't find the contesting speedy deletion page. Please don't delete my page. All the pages I created were deleted and I would be incredibly sad if my user page was deleted too. I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I created this account 1 or 2 months ago. I don't know what is accepted as a notable page, which is why all my pages are deleted. Please explain on my talk page why you want to delete my user page. Heymister14 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)heymister14

Please don't delete my user page. I'm now over what AnthonyBradbury did to my page. Stuff happens. Also, I didn't make this account to attack people. I wanted to write articles to teach other people. I shouldn't get my user page deleted for expressing my opinion about people who mess with my stuff. Wikipedia is called a free encyclopedia. When I think of free, I think of free speech, which is what the United States is supposed to have. I never meant to attack anyone. I am just questioning their decisions. Heymister14 (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)heymister14

Clearly it has been expanded since I tagged it. What are you talking about? Statυs (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Bitmapped's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Bitmapped (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed that the page for the Hungarian band After Crying was deleted by you on 01:22, 12 June 2012, using the Criteria for speedy deletion A7 (Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject).

I was currently creating articles for all the albums of this band, because I do believe that this is a relevant band, although it is not known outside the progressive rock circle. The articles that I already created (and was currently improving) are the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overground_Music , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B6ld_%C3%A9s_%C3%A9g and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Profundis_%28album_by_After_Crying%29

This band is 26 years old, and very important in the Hungarian prog rock scene, with 9 of their albums on sale at Amazon.com, and reviews in many relevant sites, as AllMusic, ProgArchives and GEPR.net.

I ask you to reconsider the deletion.

Anyway, just for the sake of coherence, if the decision is to maintain the deletion of the page After Crying, I believe that the pages for their albums shall also be deleted.

Thanks, Moahh (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response.Moahh (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I aploud the the courtesy restoration but only for a probationary period pending immediate corection of the sourcing. I must once more contested the Notability of this Band. Unless it can be supported with good quality sources - not on Hearsay; not on their selfpublished myspace page or their selfpublished web site than it should be deleted ASAP. Adding all the albums is a very bad idea unless the notability of the band is established. Wikipedia is not a IMDB. Looking at all the differnt language pages - none have a single source indicating this is Notable.

Sales on amazon sounds like a COI/promotional criteria for inclusion. Review sites which are peer produced and are not WP:RS either.

If the band is Notable - there should be no difficulty to find international press coverage - otherwise it should not be listed on the English Wikipedia. 

  OBO   α  ω    12:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)  11:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend, I agree that the best way to distinguish the two Beckner's is by their middle initial. William Beckner the mathematician contacted me and said he didn't appreciate having his middle initial in there. Could we please remove the middle initial? Thanks, mkelly86 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkelly86 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nyttend, I see your point and I have an idea. How about we make the title William Beckner (mathematician)? That way we drop the middle initial and keep neutrality. Will you please consider this? Thank you, mkelly86 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkelly86 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nyttend, Would you rather delete the article than to find a way to drop the initial? -mkelly86 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkelly86 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nyttend, I think we could do something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_%28disambiguation%29 . If it is good enough for Thomas Jefferson then it is surely good enough for William Beckner. What do you think? Thanks, Mkelly86 (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nyttend, I don't understand why the wikipedia community doesn't take (reasonable) requests from the subject matter. Don't you feel Beckner should have a say? Will you please take into account that there are emotions being felt here that you cannot see first hand? The decisions we make really effect people. What would Jesus do (ya know)? Also, I don't agree that removing the initial makes him the primary topic IF we include (mathematician). I like what wikipedia has done with the Thomas Jefferson disambiguation page, why can't that be done for William Beckner? Please take my words into consideration. 137.222.137.7 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nyttend, I read the references that you posted in your latest reply and I see that the wikipedia community has standards and procedures for dealing with these situations. I also see that everything in the article must have a reference and some type of justification. You won't like this, but when I began the William E. Beckner article I asked a colleague down the hall what Beckner's middle name was (not the most reliable source). At the time I did not doubt this source (and I have honestly tried to keep everything justified and true), but I can't for the life of me find a source or reference that actually states that E. is his middle initial (I honestly have looked and I can't find anything). Given the circumstances I don't think we can justifiably keep the initial in the article title. What do you think? Thank you, Mkelly86 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nyttend, Could you please change the title we had discussed, or give me permission to do it? Thank you, Mkelly86 (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Hello dear Nyttend. please unblock MahdiBot. you locked last month, Because im run it without flaged. please do it, to i request for approval. thanks a lot/Mahdiz (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello.

Remember what happened in March? Here we go again. Having more problems on Denver with editor(s) removing valid information. Please provide your input at the discussion at the administrator's noticeboard (permalink) since you were involved in the past incident. Thank you. (IP address now changed) 69.155.128.40 (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC), last modified 19:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in replying, but the answer to your question is twofold. First, the troll/sock User:Answers for Tryptofish pointed to a commentary posted on Wikipediocracy by the banned User:Vigilant.[6] Second, Vigilant has previously tried to intervene in the same case via a meatpuppet [7] who got slapped down hard by a clerk for proxying for a banned user.[8] It's not too difficult to join the dots. Prioryman (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've been researching the intersection of Wikipedia and Authority Control, and have just recently made a Village Pump Proposal to create a bot to expand the usage of a template. I've identified you as someone in the sphere of interest to this project and would appreciate your input at the Village Pump. Thanks, Maximiliankleinoclc (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

http://universimmedia.pagesperso-orange.fr/geo/loc.htm Nyttend backup (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

We'll be meeting at West Branch Library noon to 4 p.m. on June 30th. See you soon! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those are the correct coordinates. Unfortunately the area where we'll be meeting doesn't have computers, but the public, main floor above it does. Thanks!--YHoshua (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Nyttend, I've given you IP block exemption per your request. When you're ready to be remopped, just leave a note on WP:BN...no need to personally ask me! bibliomaniac15 04:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend, is there a policy or practice regarding assigning inventions to specific countries? For instance, should it be the inventor's place of birth, the place of the invention, or perhaps both? There is a current disagreement regarding Belgian inventions - see Bakelite talk page. Sandcherry (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Nyttend, this is what I've done, is it ok? https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:MyGallery&withJS=MediaWiki:JSONListUploads.js&gUser=Keith-264 Keith-264 (talk) 07:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The article Nicholas Podier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

May not meet notability guidelines

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. keystoneridin! (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Nyttend I see that you've reverted the blanking of some material which I did yesterday. While you might turn out to be right in the long run, I don't think the discussion at AN has really come to a clear conclusion yet - please see my latest here. I'm not going to revert you but for the duration of the AN discussion I would ask that you revert yourself and remove the personal information - even if only temporarily. If your view prevails it can always be re-added. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind - the discussion there has moved on! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Nyttend, forgive me if this question sounds inappropriate (it's not intended to be negative or anything), but how serious are you in your keep !votes at stupidly long AfD name? It just kinda seems like you're doing it to make a point, rather than on the merits of the article itself. I mean, I don't see how the list is anything but trivial intersection, and I don't know why the facial hair list forces us to conclude otherwise. Like, is there something about the Fed chairman x religion that you think is a valid comparison? Because if there isn't, and it's based solely on the precedent of the facial hair list, then that seems like a *really* bad precedent to set. (Also, looking at the facial hair AfD, it looks like the fact that there were sources that discuss presidents in terms of facial hair weighed significantly in the admin's closing decision and many of the !keep votes, and Milowent mentions that facial hair was a controversial topic with a good deal of coverage on the topic, unlike this list.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am absolutely serious; it would help if you assumed good faith. We have precedent for keeping a less significant list, so it's absurd to delete this one on trivial intersection grounds, and your idea that we need sources discussing the list itself was soundly rejected some months ago. We have plenty of lists that are more trivial than this one, and when the existence of such pages is supported by consensus such as the facial hair AFD, "other stuff exists" is a valid argument. Nyttend (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if anything I've said struck you as not assuming good faith; I meant the question more in terms of how much of your support is for this particular list, vs. any list in general. My AGF has not waned throughout the discussion (at least with respect to you; Prachursharma I'm beginning to have doubts about...) Anyway, my point is that the facial hair AfD decision had other factors going into it; namely, the existence of sources that specifically cover the facial hair of presidents and historical, sourced disputes over the facial hair of presidential candidates. This combination apparently has nothing comparable, so it's not a 1-to-1 comparison and I don't think it can be used as a blanket precedent. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wiknic is nearly upon us! We need to figure out who can bring different food items; please reply at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Evansville/Wiknic/2012#Food. Thanks! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

At this edit of Time in Alabama, you removed Category:Alabama and added Category:Geography of Alabama. Why shouldn't the article be in both categories? Thanks! —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it's our standard practice not to have a page in two categories when one of those categories is a subcategory of the other. I understand that it may seem silly at first, but it's the only way to prevent categories from being overly full. If we didn't have that practice, anything from Category:Alabama would also belong in Category:United States, everything in it would also go in Category:Northern American countries, everything there would be appropriate in Category:Northern America, etc. etc.; you can imagine how full Category:Universe would end up being. Nyttend (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I see, sort of. While the article does have to do with geography in the sense that it discusses time zone borders in the geographic terms by which they're defined, it doesn't necessarily seem a good fit to call it a geography article. If buying a book on Alabama Geography, I would not necessarily think that a chapter about time and time zones was missing if it was not present. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)