Could you please move this to main space? It's been disambiguated. Abyssal ( talk) 11:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask on my talk page, or to post at the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 02:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Hello. I am messaging you to make an emergency block request for user:Bigdick247365 because he made a terroristic threat. CLCStudent ( talk) 18:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I finally got around to writing another article from the ones started by Allen3. Please delete User:Allen3/blakely as it has been developed into William G. Blakely. MB 04:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
You added a red link to a disambiguation page over a year ago. I fixed it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
BD2412, Talk:African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico/mergerdrop was created in 2007. It should be deleted now, right? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I had an idea and just wanted to run it by you... Whenever there is a change on a list of presidential(ly) appointed judges like a resignation, elevation, etc, I feel it's important to note as such in whatever list. The following are examples: Trump appointees: Quattlebaum: Elevated W. Bush appointees: Engelhardt, St. Eve, Thapar, Erickson, etc: Elevated Obama appointees: Sharp, Forrest: Resigned I realize they don't "technically" end senior status so it's not a "valid" reason however, it gives a reason none-the-less as to how/why their service may have ended. I don't see it uniformly being done yet, but didn't know if it might be a possibility in the future. We can easily leave it as an en dash and that's fine too; my only reasoning is to perhaps orient a reader who may be unfamiliar and/or not know about FJC... Just a thought. What do you think? Good idea, bad idea, leave it alone? Thanks! Snickers2686 ( talk) 14:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Sorry about the mess at Glendale Veterans War MemorialHere is what happened. I created that article in my user space some time ago. What I intended to do, was to use that user space to start that other thing, and then believed that I was just changing the name in my user space. Whooops. That what I get for thinking. So thanks for streightening that out for me. For all of us. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 21:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Given that the article was only moved in May, on the strength of only three supports (one of whom has since changed their mind), after 15 years at the World Heritage Site title, shouldn't the default "no consensus" be to revert to that long-term title? Also, please could you explain how you evaluated the arguments, because your close seems to set a new precedent (yet again) for how we evaluate what proportion of sources are needed to establish capitalisation. We already changed from "consistently capitalised" to "substantial majority", and we can't keep flip flopping like this. Thanks. — Amakuru ( talk) 22:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The title was fully capitalised for many years, as it is now lowercase this creates inconsistency with other articles and categories. Do you think it would be reasonable to move these for consistency even though the close was no consensus? — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 22:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
If I went and put tens of thousands of Eastern name order Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Hungarian names in the sort name categories, despite me not believing them to be sort names, would it be difficult to sieve them back out at a later date? I want to create all the missing redirects but not putting them in any category would make them much harder to find later on. — Xezbeth ( talk) 16:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Charm (physics) listed at Redirects for discussion![]() An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Charm (physics). Since you had some involvement with the Charm (physics) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Widefox; talk 13:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Hey there, I see you are also disambiguating links to The Advocate after the article move. I wanted to let you know that I've come across a few links that actually should have been to other disambiguations, in particular The Advocate (Louisiana) and The Advocate (Stamford). Though it's pretty easy to tell if the LGBT mag is correct based on the context of the section/article or the url when present. Thanks!— TAnthony Talk 22:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at User talk:Acroterion#online? its urgent
So, what do you want me to do? Open ANOTHER move request? What happened to consensus being rooted in policy, not votes? The evidence is on the table...the 'policy-based' result is clear. In the meantime, we are using a crap name that does not even appear in the sources the article was based on, and information about Japanese varieties of these melons is forced to exist under a 'Korean' label. At least you should have moved it to the scientific name...ANYTHING! Instead, we have a mess, and politics have won out over rationality. Why exactly have you made yourself a party to this travesty? RGloucester — ☎ 03:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
![]()
Please stop moving election articles such as United States presidential election, 2016. Such moves definitely need an RM, as this is a high profile page. Furthermore, there is a dispute over the result of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(government_and_legislation)#RFC inadequate, bot not justified. Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 22:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
You may perhaps care to revise your opinion in the light of this page view analysis. Narky Blert ( talk) 04:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
characteristic series linked to wrong area of math(polynomials).deleted link and reworded. Central seriesHey, your concept in linking was good! But it's the wrong kind. Let's work this out. Cordially, 170.170.57.195 ( talk) 20:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC) can you please tell me clearly what A7 means i dont understand why was it deleted the reference was from notable website AVN.com Thank you Iamheentity ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Your close of this discussion seems quite improper in that seven days has not yet passed and there was no consensus for the move which you have made. As the page is being developed per our editing policy, it should be left in mainspace for ordinary editing to continue. If you consider the current draft to be unsatisfactory, then you should revert to a previous version rather than disrupting current activity and discussion. Andrew D. ( talk) 21:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Deletion review for List of science fiction short storiesAn editor has asked for a deletion review of List of science fiction short stories. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page and speedily deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC) I don't know if you're the right person to ask about this, but you're the most qualified person who has edited the
Ballarat page in the last month. ThomasBur ( talk) 02:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
This discussion could perhaps benefit from a review by an experienced admin. I am of course convinced that I am always correct! but per WP:CANVASS, I only ever ask for opinions from editors whose opinions I feel sure will be independent. (I most often just post neutral notifications on WikiProject Talk Pages, as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Rise of Macedon). That aside, 3+ WP:RMs within a calendar month suggests to me WP:POINT- and WP:AGENDA-pushing by one or more editors. Yrs, Narky Blert ( talk) 00:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
![]()
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC) Hi BD, as far as I can tell, you're the most recent admin to make a non-involved edit at Smallfoot (film). There has been an ongoing ridiculous edit war involving massive plot summary expansion [2] by a New South Wales IP. He has been reverted by multiple editors including myself. He has been removing the invisible notice about the 400-700 word plot guideline each time [3]. Apparently no one is willing to block the anon because he's technically not a vandal and we coddle trolls and the incompetent, but sprotection would be greatly appreciated. Ribbet32 ( talk) 19:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Anyone can edit listed at Redirects for discussion![]() An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anyone can edit. Since you had some involvement with the Anyone can edit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Hi BD2412, just wanted to invite you to help edit some Fourth Amendment related pages. I left a message on WikiProject US Constitution Talk which fills out the details and lists the pages. Thanks! Seahawk01 ( talk) 03:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Hello, please visit Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 12 and offer your opinion on my proposed retargeting of Public Law. Nyttend ( talk) 13:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Hi BD2412! I wanted to ask for your input on a page for Dennis E. Taylor (Author), it was deleted about a year ago but his profile has risen significantly in the last 12 months and I believe he meets the Notability guidelines now. I'd appreciate your feed back if possible! Details are here with links to updated articles and reviews - /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Dennis_E._Taylor Thank you! Adameparker ( talk) 00:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I'll get right on it :) Adameparker ( talk) 05:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC) I'm wondering what the "consistency" is that your move summary refers to. In the nomination form for this one, US or U.S. is not mentioned, so why not just take it out? Perhaps use Cañon City Post Office and Federal Building? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all the space-comma fixing, too. I'd get me some of that AWB, if it wasn't Windows-only. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
BD2412, regarding this, do you mind explaining why it's better categorized as a set index instead of a disambiguation page? There isn't much more that can be added to the page. I have looked at Wikipedia:Set index articles. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Canu you please move this page to draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamheentity ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out at Open source. This page could use an expert eye. I've been in discussions with the editor who made most of the recent edits (see talk page) but we're not quite sure where to go from here. It feels more like a BCA than a dab to me: it's not distinguishing between distinct meanings of "open source" but listing articles which apply the same broad concept to areas such as software and cola(!). Help and advice welcome please (though I won't be acting on it tonight as it's bedtime here). Certes ( talk) 23:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, BD2412. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Hi. I think that someone is playing games on the Talk page of the Corporation as my comments don't appear. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 ( talk) 18:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Trust me, the admins are messing around. Anyhow, am I allowed to comment, now? I was blocked and now I am not, I guess. I don't know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 ( talk) 17:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Please reconsider your close of the above-noted AfD. There were no comments suggesting draftification as an alternative to deletion, so your choice to draftify instead of delete or relist is effectively a supervote. The article is from 2009 - this is not a new article under active development that should be returned to draftspace to incubate, it is an old article that has had plenty of time to develop in mainspace. The article will be as ignored in draftspace as it has been in articlespace. Essentially, your close has done nothing but postpone deletion for six months until G13 kicks in, which is pointless. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Deletion review for Samahang KapatidAn editor has asked for a deletion review of Samahang Kapatid. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Please I want you to undelete this page because I want to edit and improve the page. http://deletedwiki.com/index.php?title=ChopSquad_DJ Ziggy 2milli ( talk) 06:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. please why was the page deleted so that I will know how to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggy 2milli ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
for blatant disregard of our harassment policy? Did you even look at their block log? This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last - our inaction and unwillingness to do anything is just telling everyone this behaviour is A-OK. - TNT 💖 21:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jytdog and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. Thanks, - TNT 💖 22:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Hi, I'd like to ask you about your closing decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC Cincinnati (MLS). You closed the discussion as no consensus, which I agree with. However, you said that the status quo was for the separate MLS article to remain, which I disagree with. The MLS article only existed for fifteen minutes before I started that AfD. Prior to November 13, information about the FC Cincinnati MLS team had been covered in the USL team's article. The club ownership first started publicly pushing for an expansion club in late 2016, and the expansion club was officially announced in May 2018. To me, it doesn't make sense to keep the separate MLS article as the status quo, when the implicit consensus for many months has been to cover the USL and MLS teams in a single article. – IagoQnsi ( talk) 04:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
William McKinley presidential campaign, 1896 and other campaign articlesI do not see where the RFC in question covered campaigns. Only elections and referenda are mentioned. So why should these be changed?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC) |
Could you please move this to main space? It's been disambiguated. Abyssal ( talk) 11:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask on my talk page, or to post at the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 02:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Hello. I am messaging you to make an emergency block request for user:Bigdick247365 because he made a terroristic threat. CLCStudent ( talk) 18:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I finally got around to writing another article from the ones started by Allen3. Please delete User:Allen3/blakely as it has been developed into William G. Blakely. MB 04:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
You added a red link to a disambiguation page over a year ago. I fixed it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
BD2412, Talk:African slave trade and immigration to Puerto Rico/mergerdrop was created in 2007. It should be deleted now, right? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hey, I had an idea and just wanted to run it by you... Whenever there is a change on a list of presidential(ly) appointed judges like a resignation, elevation, etc, I feel it's important to note as such in whatever list. The following are examples: Trump appointees: Quattlebaum: Elevated W. Bush appointees: Engelhardt, St. Eve, Thapar, Erickson, etc: Elevated Obama appointees: Sharp, Forrest: Resigned I realize they don't "technically" end senior status so it's not a "valid" reason however, it gives a reason none-the-less as to how/why their service may have ended. I don't see it uniformly being done yet, but didn't know if it might be a possibility in the future. We can easily leave it as an en dash and that's fine too; my only reasoning is to perhaps orient a reader who may be unfamiliar and/or not know about FJC... Just a thought. What do you think? Good idea, bad idea, leave it alone? Thanks! Snickers2686 ( talk) 14:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Sorry about the mess at Glendale Veterans War MemorialHere is what happened. I created that article in my user space some time ago. What I intended to do, was to use that user space to start that other thing, and then believed that I was just changing the name in my user space. Whooops. That what I get for thinking. So thanks for streightening that out for me. For all of us. Einar aka Carptrash ( talk) 21:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Given that the article was only moved in May, on the strength of only three supports (one of whom has since changed their mind), after 15 years at the World Heritage Site title, shouldn't the default "no consensus" be to revert to that long-term title? Also, please could you explain how you evaluated the arguments, because your close seems to set a new precedent (yet again) for how we evaluate what proportion of sources are needed to establish capitalisation. We already changed from "consistently capitalised" to "substantial majority", and we can't keep flip flopping like this. Thanks. — Amakuru ( talk) 22:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The title was fully capitalised for many years, as it is now lowercase this creates inconsistency with other articles and categories. Do you think it would be reasonable to move these for consistency even though the close was no consensus? — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 22:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
If I went and put tens of thousands of Eastern name order Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Hungarian names in the sort name categories, despite me not believing them to be sort names, would it be difficult to sieve them back out at a later date? I want to create all the missing redirects but not putting them in any category would make them much harder to find later on. — Xezbeth ( talk) 16:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Charm (physics) listed at Redirects for discussion![]() An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Charm (physics). Since you had some involvement with the Charm (physics) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Widefox; talk 13:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Hey there, I see you are also disambiguating links to The Advocate after the article move. I wanted to let you know that I've come across a few links that actually should have been to other disambiguations, in particular The Advocate (Louisiana) and The Advocate (Stamford). Though it's pretty easy to tell if the LGBT mag is correct based on the context of the section/article or the url when present. Thanks!— TAnthony Talk 22:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at User talk:Acroterion#online? its urgent
So, what do you want me to do? Open ANOTHER move request? What happened to consensus being rooted in policy, not votes? The evidence is on the table...the 'policy-based' result is clear. In the meantime, we are using a crap name that does not even appear in the sources the article was based on, and information about Japanese varieties of these melons is forced to exist under a 'Korean' label. At least you should have moved it to the scientific name...ANYTHING! Instead, we have a mess, and politics have won out over rationality. Why exactly have you made yourself a party to this travesty? RGloucester — ☎ 03:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
![]()
Please stop moving election articles such as United States presidential election, 2016. Such moves definitely need an RM, as this is a high profile page. Furthermore, there is a dispute over the result of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(government_and_legislation)#RFC inadequate, bot not justified. Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 22:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
You may perhaps care to revise your opinion in the light of this page view analysis. Narky Blert ( talk) 04:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
characteristic series linked to wrong area of math(polynomials).deleted link and reworded. Central seriesHey, your concept in linking was good! But it's the wrong kind. Let's work this out. Cordially, 170.170.57.195 ( talk) 20:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC) can you please tell me clearly what A7 means i dont understand why was it deleted the reference was from notable website AVN.com Thank you Iamheentity ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Your close of this discussion seems quite improper in that seven days has not yet passed and there was no consensus for the move which you have made. As the page is being developed per our editing policy, it should be left in mainspace for ordinary editing to continue. If you consider the current draft to be unsatisfactory, then you should revert to a previous version rather than disrupting current activity and discussion. Andrew D. ( talk) 21:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Deletion review for List of science fiction short storiesAn editor has asked for a deletion review of List of science fiction short stories. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page and speedily deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC) I don't know if you're the right person to ask about this, but you're the most qualified person who has edited the
Ballarat page in the last month. ThomasBur ( talk) 02:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
This discussion could perhaps benefit from a review by an experienced admin. I am of course convinced that I am always correct! but per WP:CANVASS, I only ever ask for opinions from editors whose opinions I feel sure will be independent. (I most often just post neutral notifications on WikiProject Talk Pages, as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#Rise of Macedon). That aside, 3+ WP:RMs within a calendar month suggests to me WP:POINT- and WP:AGENDA-pushing by one or more editors. Yrs, Narky Blert ( talk) 00:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
![]()
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC) Hi BD, as far as I can tell, you're the most recent admin to make a non-involved edit at Smallfoot (film). There has been an ongoing ridiculous edit war involving massive plot summary expansion [2] by a New South Wales IP. He has been reverted by multiple editors including myself. He has been removing the invisible notice about the 400-700 word plot guideline each time [3]. Apparently no one is willing to block the anon because he's technically not a vandal and we coddle trolls and the incompetent, but sprotection would be greatly appreciated. Ribbet32 ( talk) 19:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Anyone can edit listed at Redirects for discussion![]() An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anyone can edit. Since you had some involvement with the Anyone can edit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Hi BD2412, just wanted to invite you to help edit some Fourth Amendment related pages. I left a message on WikiProject US Constitution Talk which fills out the details and lists the pages. Thanks! Seahawk01 ( talk) 03:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Hello, please visit Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 12 and offer your opinion on my proposed retargeting of Public Law. Nyttend ( talk) 13:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Hi BD2412! I wanted to ask for your input on a page for Dennis E. Taylor (Author), it was deleted about a year ago but his profile has risen significantly in the last 12 months and I believe he meets the Notability guidelines now. I'd appreciate your feed back if possible! Details are here with links to updated articles and reviews - /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Dennis_E._Taylor Thank you! Adameparker ( talk) 00:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I'll get right on it :) Adameparker ( talk) 05:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC) I'm wondering what the "consistency" is that your move summary refers to. In the nomination form for this one, US or U.S. is not mentioned, so why not just take it out? Perhaps use Cañon City Post Office and Federal Building? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all the space-comma fixing, too. I'd get me some of that AWB, if it wasn't Windows-only. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
BD2412, regarding this, do you mind explaining why it's better categorized as a set index instead of a disambiguation page? There isn't much more that can be added to the page. I have looked at Wikipedia:Set index articles. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Canu you please move this page to draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamheentity ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out at Open source. This page could use an expert eye. I've been in discussions with the editor who made most of the recent edits (see talk page) but we're not quite sure where to go from here. It feels more like a BCA than a dab to me: it's not distinguishing between distinct meanings of "open source" but listing articles which apply the same broad concept to areas such as software and cola(!). Help and advice welcome please (though I won't be acting on it tonight as it's bedtime here). Certes ( talk) 23:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, BD2412. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Hi. I think that someone is playing games on the Talk page of the Corporation as my comments don't appear. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 ( talk) 18:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Trust me, the admins are messing around. Anyhow, am I allowed to comment, now? I was blocked and now I am not, I guess. I don't know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 ( talk) 17:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Please reconsider your close of the above-noted AfD. There were no comments suggesting draftification as an alternative to deletion, so your choice to draftify instead of delete or relist is effectively a supervote. The article is from 2009 - this is not a new article under active development that should be returned to draftspace to incubate, it is an old article that has had plenty of time to develop in mainspace. The article will be as ignored in draftspace as it has been in articlespace. Essentially, your close has done nothing but postpone deletion for six months until G13 kicks in, which is pointless. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Deletion review for Samahang KapatidAn editor has asked for a deletion review of Samahang Kapatid. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Please I want you to undelete this page because I want to edit and improve the page. http://deletedwiki.com/index.php?title=ChopSquad_DJ Ziggy 2milli ( talk) 06:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. please why was the page deleted so that I will know how to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggy 2milli ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
for blatant disregard of our harassment policy? Did you even look at their block log? This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last - our inaction and unwillingness to do anything is just telling everyone this behaviour is A-OK. - TNT 💖 21:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Jytdog and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. Thanks, - TNT 💖 22:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Hi, I'd like to ask you about your closing decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC Cincinnati (MLS). You closed the discussion as no consensus, which I agree with. However, you said that the status quo was for the separate MLS article to remain, which I disagree with. The MLS article only existed for fifteen minutes before I started that AfD. Prior to November 13, information about the FC Cincinnati MLS team had been covered in the USL team's article. The club ownership first started publicly pushing for an expansion club in late 2016, and the expansion club was officially announced in May 2018. To me, it doesn't make sense to keep the separate MLS article as the status quo, when the implicit consensus for many months has been to cover the USL and MLS teams in a single article. – IagoQnsi ( talk) 04:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
William McKinley presidential campaign, 1896 and other campaign articlesI do not see where the RFC in question covered campaigns. Only elections and referenda are mentioned. So why should these be changed?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC) |