User talk:Article editor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Article editor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Blocked[edit]

I have emergency-blocked you to stop you from doing your undiscussed and controversial mass edits. You can be unblocked whenever you agree to stop making undiscussed mass edits and to form consensus for any further moves and redirects you wish to do. Fut.Perf. 22:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for unblock[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Article editor (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I've been blocked for "mass edits"—mostly creating redirects and recently moving three pages. Most redirects were plausible misspellings or alternative romanizations. If unblocked, I will refrain on other types of redirects. The recent moves were Salafi, Wahhabi, and AhmadiyyaSalafism, Wahhabism, and Ahmadism. Though undiscussed, these terms are not unheard of: "salafism" and "wahhabism" appear in the header paragraphs, and are not uncommon terms ([1], [2], [3]). The original titles were either adjectives or refer to a person, while "-ism" forms a noun. These titles were neutral, although I admit Ahmadism may not be common enough. I had not been involved in a renaming dispute recently except for those, and will refrain from bold moves in the future. Article editor (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We're backlogged a bit, so temporarily declining this for the time being without prejudice; once you have an opportunity to respond to Thryduulf's comments below, please post a new unblock template so we know to check back. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

For reference, the ANI discussion of the incident is here. That discussion shows at least two moves/redirects which immediately threw up red flags from other editors, and I imagine there are more as well that would have caused concern had they been noticed. Do you plan to discuss any moves you might be considering in the future with editors on those articles? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I will discuss page moves in the talk page in the future. --Article editor (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I am willing to consider unblocking you. However, I am not satisfied that you are really aware of the extent of the problem. Some of the redirects you have created might be defensible, while some have been ridiculous. However, even for those that are not totally indefensible, it is not necessary to create a redirect for every possible misspelling or alternative romanisation you can think of that someone somewhere might conceivably sometime search for: just the ones that are likely to be commonly searched for are enough. I also see that you have been creating controversial redirects and making controversial moves since 2006, and as far as I can see your only response to messages about the problems, before you were blocked, was to remove them from this talk page. You have said that you will discuss page moves in future, which is fine. However, on the subject of redirects, you say "Most redirects were plausible misspellings or alternative romanizations. If unblocked, I will refrain on other types of redirects." The problem there is that your idea of what is "plausible" does not always agree with that of other editors. I would really prefer you to undertake to stay away from redirects altogether, and at the very least would want a much stronger undertaking to restrict your redirecting activity before I was willing to unblock you. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
No editor has, as an absolute imperative, to create redirects. I would only be happy to unblock, in view of your very long history, if you agreed not to create any redirects at all, of any kind and in any area. I await your response, please. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I will agree to cease creating redirects, but I want to make sure it's understood that I won't be giving up rights to editing an existing redirect, e.g. for purposes such as making it more specifically targeted (this is only an example). --Article editor (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I would not personally accept that limitation; I will let another admin decide from here in.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-Administrator Intervention) I hate to see editors getting their hands tied behind their backs like we're throwing at Article Editor here but when it has to be done it has to be done. I'm problably not going to be very popular asking this but are we sure his username doesn't break any rules? On matters of what he was blocked for I have a suggestion, how about unblock him but ban him from doing redirects at all with long bans or perma-bans in place if he makes the mistake of not following that ban? MIVP - Allow us to be of assistance to you. (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 12:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking conditions[edit]

Regarding the username, I don't see any issues with it. Regarding the reason for the block, I understand it, the complete ban on redirects was what Anthony.bradbury proposed above (although without the explicit sanction) and Article editor indicated he was not happy with. AE: How about the following instead:

  1. You are not allowed to create any redirects yourself except where both the redirect and its target are within your own user or user talk namespaces.
  2. You must discuss and gain consensus for all pages moves. If you move a page, you may allow the system to create a redirect as normal. You may not move a page with the sole intention of creating a redirect.
    • e.g. moving Example to Piemērs and then back again so that the latter title redirects to the former is not allowed.
  3. You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the creation of redirects on the talk page of the proposed target and/or a relevant wikiproject or centralised discussion, but you may not create them yourself even if there is consensus in favour of them. If the discussion is not at the proposed target's talk page, you must link to the discussion from there.
  4. You may not retarget any existing redirect except where both the redirect and it's new target are within your user or user talk namespace.
  5. You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the retargetting of a redirect at one of (a) the talk page of the current target, (b) the talk page of the proposed target, (c) the talk page of the redirect itself (you are allowed to create the talk page for this if it does not already exist), (d) a relevant WikiProject or centralised discussion, or (e) Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the discussion is at (a) then you must link to it from (b) and vice versa. If the discussion is at (c) or (d) you must link to it from both (a) and (b). If the discussion is at (e) then you must link to it from the talk page of (a) and (b) if the redirect is not tagged with an RfD template. You may create the talk pages as necessary to comply with this. In all cases you may also link to the discussion from elsewhere at your discretion.
  6. You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the deletion or retargetting of any redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and you are allowed to edit a redirect in order to nominate it according to the instructions at RfD.
  7. You are allowed to make neutral statements that inform users or groups of users about the discussion of any redirect relevant to that person or group. You may do this wherever the discussion is taking place.
  8. You are not allowed to implement the consensus of any RfD discussion.
  9. You are all allowed to take part in discussions about redirects started by others, wherever that discussion is.
  10. Any discussion you initiate or contribute to may be about either one or more than one redirect. In the latter case the above rules apply to every redirect being discussed as if it were being discussed individually.
    • e.g. if you propose the retargetting of three redirects in one discussion, you must notify the current and proposed targets of all 3.
  11. You may not group unrelated redirects into a single discussion and all groups must be finite in number.
  12. You are not allowed to initiate more than five discussions about redirects in any 24 hour period. This is totalled across all venues and includes RfD nominations. The limit is the number of discussions, not the number of redirects being discussed in each.
  13. You are not restricted on the number of existing discussions to which you may contribute.
  14. If a discussion about a redirect in which you have taken part has reached a consensus for an action that you are not allowed to perform, but which has not been implemented after a reasonable time, you may ask another user to implement it. You may do this by means of a request on a relevant talk page or user talk page. You may at your discretion use the {{edit request}} system, and you may create talk pages of existing redirects in order to do so.
  15. You may tag existing redirects with an categorisation template per WP:RCAT. You may also correct and/or update existing categorisation templates.
  16. You may tag the talk pages of existing redirects with the banners of relevant WikiProjects (unless that WikiProject objects, either generally or specifically), and you may create the talk pages if necessary. You may also correct and/or update existing banners.

I know that looks a lot, but it is just setting out what are actually fairly simple rules about what you can and cannot do relating to redirects. Hopefully they are unambiguous and easy to follow without the opportunity for anyone to wikilawyer around them - most of them are actually about what you explicitly can do, rather than what you can't.

tldr: You may not create or retarget any redirect outside your user or user talk space. You may propose the creation, retargetting or deletion of redirects at the appropriate venue provided you advertise these discussions, but you may not initiate more than five proposals in any 24 hours and you may not implement the consensus of these discussions. You may contribute to an unlimited number of existing discussions about redirects regardless of who started them. You are allowed to categorise redirects and tag their talk pages for wikiprojects. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I support barring this editor from making redirects. Just came from fixing Javin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Javín (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ‎after him. The latter is next to patented nonsense and IMHO has to be deleted at all. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
There is also Iavin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Iavín (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); I even do not look on edit histories. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Goko and Gokō nominated at RfD[edit]

Two redirects you created in 2009, Goko and Gokō, both of which point to Kim Dae-jung, have been nominated at RfD - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 6#Goko. I recognise that you are currently blocked and so are unable to comment directly there, but I will copy any comments you make on this page to the discussion on your behalf. This is a good opportunity to demonstrate the behaviour you will employ in future, which will guide decision on your unblock request. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I created the redirects, and at first I had trouble remembering what they referred to. I understand that they probably should be deleted. --Article editor (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment, I've copied it to the discussion for you (and sorry it took a while). [4] Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Reactivating request for unblock[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Article editor (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Reactivating a temporarily closed request for unblock. See previous request for earlier discussion. --Article editor (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Given your acceptance of the editing restrictions, and nobody commenting for over a day, I have unblocked you subject to abiding by those restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I would accept Thryduulf's proposal. I was only afraid that accepting a blanket ban on redirects would have severely limited my ability to edit.

As for MIVP's concern, my username had already been discussed here: [5]. --Article editor (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Since there's already been concencus on your username I have no problem with it. Your username triggered WP:ISU in my head but since you've already had one username problem i'm not going to give you a second, have a good day :) MIVP - Allow us to be of assistance to you. (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 10:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting those restrctions, hopefully now we can all move forward. For ease of reference, you might want to copy the editing restrictions to a page in your userspace, but I leave that entirely to your discretion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

For ease of linking at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, I've copied the restrictions verbatim from above here.

Agreed editing restrictions[edit]

  1. You are not allowed to create any redirects yourself except where both the redirect and its target are within your own user or user talk namespaces.
  2. You must discuss and gain consensus for all pages moves. If you move a page, you may allow the system to create a redirect as normal. You may not move a page with the sole intention of creating a redirect.
    • e.g. moving Example to Piemērs and then back again so that the latter title redirects to the former is not allowed.
  3. You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the creation of redirects on the talk page of the proposed target and/or a relevant wikiproject or centralised discussion, but you may not create them yourself even if there is consensus in favour of them. If the discussion is not at the proposed target's talk page, you must link to the discussion from there.
  4. You may not retarget any existing redirect except where both the redirect and it's new target are within your user or user talk namespace.
  5. You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the retargetting of a redirect at one of (a) the talk page of the current target, (b) the talk page of the proposed target, (c) the talk page of the redirect itself (you are allowed to create the talk page for this if it does not already exist), (d) a relevant WikiProject or centralised discussion, or (e) Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the discussion is at (a) then you must link to it from (b) and vice versa. If the discussion is at (c) or (d) you must link to it from both (a) and (b). If the discussion is at (e) then you must link to it from the talk page of (a) and (b) if the redirect is not tagged with an RfD template. You may create the talk pages as necessary to comply with this. In all cases you may also link to the discussion from elsewhere at your discretion.
  6. You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the deletion or retargetting of any redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and you are allowed to edit a redirect in order to nominate it according to the instructions at RfD.
  7. You are allowed to make neutral statements that inform users or groups of users about the discussion of any redirect relevant to that person or group. You may do this wherever the discussion is taking place.
  8. You are not allowed to implement the consensus of any RfD discussion.
  9. You are all allowed to take part in discussions about redirects started by others, wherever that discussion is.
  10. Any discussion you initiate or contribute to may be about either one or more than one redirect. In the latter case the above rules apply to every redirect being discussed as if it were being discussed individually.
    • e.g. if you propose the retargetting of three redirects in one discussion, you must notify the current and proposed targets of all 3.
  11. You may not group unrelated redirects into a single discussion and all groups must be finite in number.
  12. You are not allowed to initiate more than five discussions about redirects in any 24 hour period. This is totalled across all venues and includes RfD nominations. The limit is the number of discussions, not the number of redirects being discussed in each.
  13. You are not restricted on the number of existing discussions to which you may contribute.
  14. If a discussion about a redirect in which you have taken part has reached a consensus for an action that you are not allowed to perform, but which has not been implemented after a reasonable time, you may ask another user to implement it. You may do this by means of a request on a relevant talk page or user talk page. You may at your discretion use the {{edit request}} system, and you may create talk pages of existing redirects in order to do so.
  15. You may tag existing redirects with an categorisation template per WP:RCAT. You may also correct and/or update existing categorisation templates.
  16. You may tag the talk pages of existing redirects with the banners of relevant WikiProjects (unless that WikiProject objects, either generally or specifically), and you may create the talk pages if necessary. You may also correct and/or update existing banners.

I know that looks a lot, but it is just setting out what are actually fairly simple rules about what you can and cannot do relating to redirects. Hopefully they are unambiguous and easy to follow without the opportunity for anyone to wikilawyer around them - most of them are actually about what you explicitly can do, rather than what you can't.

tldr: You may not create or retarget any redirect outside your user or user talk space. You may propose the creation, retargetting or deletion of redirects at the appropriate venue provided you advertise these discussions, but you may not initiate more than five proposals in any 24 hours and you may not implement the consensus of these discussions. You may contribute to an unlimited number of existing discussions about redirects regardless of who started them. You are allowed to categorise redirects and tag their talk pages for wikiprojects. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Red asterisks[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_longest_suspension_bridge_spans&oldid=255763396 Note: Click on each bridge's rank to go to the bridge's official Web site. Ranks with a red asterisk (*) do not have official Web sites, nor do they have English-language versions and are linked instead to a reference entry. 1886kusagi (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Linking[edit]

Hi, thanks for your good work on the English Wikipedia. Please note that dates, years, and common terms are not normally linked. Tony (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

ITN credit[edit]

ThaddeusB (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No WP:SYNTH![edit]

Your reversion of my changes reintroduces an undue synthesis (WP:SYNTH) which is a violation of the wikipedia policies. We cannot know who are the rioters/arsoners before they're arrested. Don't use Wikipedia for a political agenda! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 05:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Refer to Talk:2013 Stockholm riots, to discuss before reverting false info. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 05:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I just thought it worthwhile to say that I think you have an awesome nickname. "Six by nine. Forty two." (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Ibiza Town - why did you support the move?[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Article editor. You have new messages at Talk:Ibiza Town.
Message added 22:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Date linking[edit]

Hi, just noticed you'd linked a full date; by community consensus since 2009, this is not normally done. Thanks. Tony (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I am sorry to bother you, but because I am not a very experienced Wikipedia contributor, I would like you to please be responsible of the move/change of title in Lebanese Arabic when consensus is reached – of course if you are okay with that. You would be of great help. And if not if you would please explain to me -in a nutshell– when a I allowed to change the title and how to do so. Thanks a lot. >>With respects Youssefbassil6 (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to help, but the suggested title already has a history. This means that only an administrator will be able to move the page to the title, which I'm not. I would not worry about closing the discussion when the time comes, though. Wait at least seven days to come to a consensus, and an admin will come to close the discussion however it turns out. --Article editor (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Rügen Wars of Succession and Lüneburg War of Succession[edit]

Hi Article editor, please help me understand the logic for moving the articles above to their new names. Did any discussion take place - if so, I wasn't informed as the article creator. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

They were posted here. --Article editor (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Roger. I have moved them to Wars of the Rügen Succession and War of the Lüneburg Succession which are consistent with the rest e.g. War of the Jülich Succession. Bermicourt (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Westgte[edit]

I never swore. At any rate, the move is sas explained. Per BRDd all the moves going on need discussion.(Lihaas (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).

Edit war on Aminah bint Wahb[edit]

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Aminah bint Wahb.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action. Tanbircdq (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Technical move requests[edit]

Hello Article editor. I declined several requests that you filed at WP:RMTR. These proposals seem to take your proposed move of French First Republic as a precedent. However the move discussion at Talk:French First Republic#Requested move ended with No Consensus. If you believe that First Republic (France) is the best proposal I suggest you open a new discussion there. Should this find consensus, then your other proposals could also make sense. I don't see a lot of enthusiasm for First Republic (France) in the comments that were made after yours. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Article editor. You have new messages at Talk:Seljuq_Empire#Great.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category:Our Miracle[edit]

Category:Our Miracle, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Brainy J ~~ (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Now listed as a regular move proposal[edit]

See Talk:Egyptian Constitution of 2014#Requested move since a bit of reverting at both the source and the target articles suggests that opinions are divided. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Declined four technical moves including XYY syndrome[edit]

Hello Article editor. These proposed moves appear non-trivial to me, so I've declined the request as a technical move. One issue is whether there should be a space after the comma. There's also a Template:Chromosomal abnormalities that currently uses the old names. It seems that a larger set of articles might need to be moved if your new system is adopted. Also, do you know what names are most common in reliable sources? Perhaps you can open a requested move on a suitable page that will get the attention of people who know this topic. The edit history of {{Chromosomal abnormalities}} might give you an idea of people to notify. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Russian invasion of Crimea for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Russian invasion of Crimea 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/Russian invasion of Crimea 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. —rybec 07:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves[edit]

Hi!

I'm afraid I've just closed and rejected three of your proposed moves with the rationale Royal name instead of personal name, and with some critical comments. I might have relisted them but this had already been done once. Please don't take this personally, we're urged to be bold and this sometimes has results like this, inevitably.

I hope the criticism there might be constructive. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you think I can help with move requests, or anything else for that matter. Andrewa (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Republic of America listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Republic of America. Since you had some involvement with the Republic of America redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 04:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Federation of America listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Federation of America. Since you had some involvement with the Federation of America redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 04:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Greater Korea for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Greater Korea 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/Greater Korea 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Holdek (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

South Corea listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect South Corea. Since you had some involvement with the South Corea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 00:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Chaoxian Minzhuzhuyi Renmin Gongheguo listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chaoxian Minzhuzhuyi Renmin Gongheguo. Since you had some involvement with the Chaoxian Minzhuzhuyi Renmin Gongheguo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Dahan Minguo listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dahan Minguo. Since you had some involvement with the Dahan Minguo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Egyptian Third Republic for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Egyptian Third Republic 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/Egyptian Third Republic 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Egyptian Fourth Republic for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Egyptian Fourth Republic 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/Egyptian Fourth Republic 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Egyptian Fifth Republic for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Egyptian Fifth Republic 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/Egyptian Fifth Republic 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

West Korea listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect West Korea. Since you had some involvement with the West Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 01:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of West Korea[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as West Korea, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Launchballer 09:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

New Korea listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect New Korea. Since you had some involvement with the New Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 00:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

East Korea listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect East Korea. Since you had some involvement with the East Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 07:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Traditional colors of Korea listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Traditional colors of Korea. Since you had some involvement with the Traditional colors of Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 07:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Koreanism listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Koreanism. Since you had some involvement with the Koreanism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 07:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Portal:South Korea listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:South Korea. Since you had some involvement with the Portal:South Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 00:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Cinnabuntu listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cinnabuntu. Since you had some involvement with the Cinnabuntu redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 05:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Sarcelles riots, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Jin Zhengri listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jin Zhengri. Since you had some involvement with the Jin Zhengri redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 05:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mal[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Mal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Farix (t | c) 22:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Seoul International Film Festival listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Seoul International Film Festival. Since you had some involvement with the Seoul International Film Festival redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Second Assyrian Genocide[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Second Assyrian Genocide has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article describes a topic that is not widely accepted (referring to the plight of the Assyrians in Iraq as "genocide") and in fact does not mention a single specific instance of Assyrians being killed. It doesn't really contain anything besides references to a couple of news articles.

While all constructive 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. 46.117.36.181 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of Yazidi genocide[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Yazidi genocide has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article describes a topic that is not widely accepted (referring to the plight of the Yazidis as "genocide" and in fact does not mention a single instance of Yazidis being killed. It doesn't really contain anything besides references to two news articles.

While all constructive 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. 46.117.36.181 (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

American Federation listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect American Federation. Since you had some involvement with the American Federation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 01:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Our Miracle[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Our Miracle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not satisfy WP:BK or WP:GNG to establish notability. The article has a single source from the publisher about the existence of a drama CD, which is also the only reference on the equivalent Japanese Wikipedia article. A search of the manga turns up blogs, scanlation websites, or retailers for the manga. Significant coverage in reliable sources would mean non-trivial mentions of the manga and/or a discussion of the manga itself, none of which I found in reliable sources found at WP:ANIME/RS or otherwise.

While all constructive 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. 03:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Kamayama listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kamayama. Since you had some involvement with the Kamayama redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 00:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)