Jump to content

User talk:L3X1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →‎Get Out: reformat
Line 256: Line 256:
:*''Not a serious nomination'' Well, I nominated, and I'm not some vandal IP, so I call that serious.
:*''Not a serious nomination'' Well, I nominated, and I'm not some vandal IP, so I call that serious.
:*''article is clearly notable'' based on what??? This discussion should be happening on the AfD page.[[User:L3X1|L3X1]] [[User talk:L3X1|My Complaint Desk]] 02:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
:*''article is clearly notable'' based on what??? This discussion should be happening on the AfD page.[[User:L3X1|L3X1]] [[User talk:L3X1|My Complaint Desk]] 02:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
:::You are obviously not a serious editor if you think this is OK. You clearly have no idea what the criteria is for nominating articles for deletion. [[User:Koala15|Koala15]] ([[User talk:Koala15|talk]]) 02:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:14, 2 February 2017

Template:DailyBracketBot

Talk to me here

You're probably here because I reverted your good faith edit. Proof of it being a GFE is that you here, so, welcome! L3X1 (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC) When addressing me on my talk page, I will reply to you on my talk page. If i come over to yours, I will add it to my watchlist. If you wish me to expedite a response, remember to @L3X1 at the beginning of your comment. Please refrain from foul, crude, crass, or otherwise dirty language on this page, or I will edit it. Thanks L3X1 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

I was trying to add Allie Knight to the List of Known YouTubers because I felt that she meets the criteria (especially with some of the YTers on the list whom the world could care less about). I had put out a notice on my talk page a week ago, nd no one told me not to so I figured it would be okay. However, when I clicked the edit button, I was unable to edit the chart. The standard edit warning regarding semi-protect auto-confirmed popped up, but as My Account is over 4 days old and has 70 some edits, I believe I am autoconfirmed. I was even asked to participate in some election of Wikipedia Arbitrator or something. So why am I unable to edit the chart? Thanks L3X1 (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is autoconfirmed. Did you click on the edit button at the top of the page or a side edit link (which might not contain the table). Were you using wikitext editing or the VisualEditor? What happened when you tried, what did you see (or not see)?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked the Edit button at the top page, and it takes me to the Visual Editor. After that loads, the title takes on a lightish grey look, underneath the title to jig-saw puzzle pieces appear that say "Use d/m/y dates" and "Pp-semi-blp". I can edit the introduction, but when I try to edit a cell or add a new line in the chart, nothing happens. Wait. Now the cells are being highlighted when I click them and an arrow appears at the left side of the line that allows me to add a line above or below. I guess maybe I just wasn't waiting for the whole editor to load, as it is working now. Thanks for your Help! :) L3X1 (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. it was a VisualEditor issue. I cannot tell you what the actual problem was, but I can tell you that I asked whether you might have been using VE because it has been full of bugs in the past, is still under development, and I remember that it specifically did not play well with tables. It is being improved though.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the explanation. The VE lagged so much I ended up switching over to markup editing for the insertion. L3X1 (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime. I think you will come upon other things that you just need to use wikitext editing for (a lot of template issues come to mind).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of heads of state of Uganda

Thank you for your revert. That user with dynamic IPs is quite persistent at vandalism and opposing attempts to improve the article. Same can be said for Prime Minister of Uganda. --Sundostund (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Always glad to be of service. Was that IP offender reported to wp:AIV? L3X1 (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't report him so far... I thought that he will cease with his "activities", but that didn't happen. Maybe those articles should be semi-protected or something? --Sundostund (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, he is reverting again at Prime Minister of Uganda, as you can see. --Sundostund (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think a Semi-protect is a good idea. L3X1 (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too, I'm just not sure how to formulate the request. This isn't some ordinary vandalism, he's basically preventing the improvement of those two articles... --Sundostund (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, I requested protection at WP:RfPP for both articles, and they're now under pending changes protection for 1 month. We'll see what will happen during and after that period. --Sundostund (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Hi there: could you please avoid making too-early notifications at AIV? When you detect a vandal it is, of course, perfectly proper - indeed necessary - to post a warning, of whatever severity appears necessary, on his talk page. But initially that is all that should be done. I am not going to block a vandal, except in the case of seriously offensive vandalism, if he makes one edit, gets warned, and then does not make any further edits. Warning and immediately posting on AIV is incorrect. Also please note that a hierarchy of warnings of increasing severity exists, and most vandals do not qualify for a block after only one warning; some do, but they are a small minority. And also, you should be clear on the difference between a block and a ban. If you do not know this, please find out before posting any more warnings. I could tell you, but prefer that you research it for yourself. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks. Sorry about that. L3X1 (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Bradbury I am confused, yesterday I reported Kaiklaer, who created an account, made an obvious vandal attack, and he was indefinetly blocked after just 1 vandal attack. Not trying to undermin your authority, but how is this different from what I reported today?L3X1 (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@L3X1: First of all let me say that I do not claim to have any particular authority; no admin has, at least not in the sense of being able to direct the activity of other editors. What we are tasked with is the maintenance of the integrity of the encyclopedia. As to your specific question, this illustrates the basic fact that admins do have a degree of autonomy in their behavior. In this example I would personally have thought very carefully before blocking this user, although I agree that he is probably a vandal-only account. In my personal opinion, and as Wikipedia blocking policy suggests, it is usual to give more than one warning except in the case of offensive vandalism or attack page creation, and if an editor is warned he normally will not qualify for a block unless he vandalizes after the warning. I do agree that getting the timimg right can be difficult; I did not mean to criticize your action, but rather to indicate the different ranges of activity which can be undertaken according to the situation. AIV is a page on which blocking is suggested/requested; the case you flagged did not, in my opinion qualify for a block at the time I reviewed it. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Bradbury: Thank you for the explanation. L3X1 (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul attack

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not as a soap box or forum for debate. Do you have any constructive suggestions for improving the article or not? If not please do not waste peoples time.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please read the edit summary before suggesting I'm vandalizing. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a summary for revision 757810383 at 15:56 today. L3X1 (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Belichick

Not sure what you thought was wrong about the edits to Belichick; the only thing your reversion did was turn off the playoff background color. The numbers look correct (the patriots just won their final game of the season). Tarl N. (discuss) 22:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMH! Thanks for catching this. L3X1 (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What vandalism isn't

Where an article has been tagged for four years for lack of RS refs, and four years later the refs have not been added, and the material is then challenged and deleted as unsupported for lack of RS refs -- that is not vandalism. You should not, therefore, revert the deletion ... especially with your curious edit summary asserting it is vandalism -- or as you put it, "vandalism! whoop whoop." And if you want to restore such properly added material, you should do so only with RS refs. Finally, that is not cause to give a vandalism warning, of course. Thank you. --2604:2000:E016:A700:D49C:5433:59C9:369D (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for assuming that the edit was in bad faith. I have retracted the warning. Are you saying you wish me to provide cites for the deletd material? L3X1 (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add that supplying a summary for what is tagged as "blanking" prevents this.L3X1 (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you wish to restore material deleted for lack of RS citations (here -- any citations, and tagged for that problem for four years), yes, it would be appropriate to add RS refs supporting your restoration. As to your second point, there was an edit summary. It stated "(d uncited)". --2604:2000:E016:A700:7474:D629:5415:A64A (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is the fault of me patrolling too late! Again, my apologies. L3X1 (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Komla Dumor

A couple of points; the Komla Dumor website wasn't a WP:RS. You might visit that website to see what it was, and why it was deleted. Next, please read WP:AGF. Do not call an edit vandalism without clear evidence that it was vandalism. You're making a habit of doing this in error. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears that KD.com is some Asian beaty products site, the Editor should have provided a summary explaning why they deleting, else why they did it is an unknown. I read AGF, and IPhuman too, I have stated that many of reversion are "of GF edits" and I call possible vandalism possible vandalism. I will improve my discernment in for future patrolling.L3X1 (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, L3X1. You have new messages at Talk:Siliguri.
Message added 15:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whpq (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs

I see that you say, on another page, that you do not know what a diff is; this will make vandal fighting, which seems to be an interest of yours, quite difficult. You will hopefully find all you need at diff. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. I use it often in vandal fighting, but never knew it had a specific title. Thanks for providing me the link. L3X1 (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of YouTube Channels with 1 Million Subscribers or More

Hello L3X1,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged List of YouTube Channels with 1 Million Subscribers or More for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, List of most subscribed users on YouTube.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commons category

Just thought I'd leave a short explanatory note of the template functionality. When used generically such as on Ana Kasparian the template default is to link according to the page's name. It doesn't link to anything via a named parameter. The only function of "|Ana Kasparian" would be to change the "displayed text", since the page title and display text are the same there is no point in putting it in to the template on the article page. The reason for this is the same as Template:Twitter, the template links automatically through a WikiData, quite a neat function. Hopefully that clears up any ambiguity. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, now I know how they work! L3X1 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent DeVeau

Hi L3X1! I saw that you tagged this page for speedy deletion, but you didn't check the article's history before doing so. It was blanked by vandal, who removed most of the content from the article. Just make sure to check the article's history before you tag it for speedy deletion. You'll also want to add a rationale in the template next time as well ;-). No worries, you're learning. Figured I'd just message you and give you a heads up. Feel free to reach out to me if you need help with anything. Happy Friday -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, it the first time I used the template, and it was in the VE so I couldn't figure out how to put in reason. I wasn't sure if it was vandalism, so I did add a stub, but it seems to have disappeared in my triple=reversion process. Thanks for telling me about this. :) L3X1 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi L3X1! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 16:23, Sunday, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Stub tags

Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article like Thomas Parits which already has a specific stub tag. Also, please note that stub tags always go at the end of an article, not the top - see WP:ORDER. If you remember that, it will make it easier to spot existing stub tags as they are usually, though not alwyas, in the right place! Thanks, and Happy editing. PamD 16:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. L3X1 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

Just a polite notice to ask that you check things a bit more carefully before reverting and mentioning "vandalism" in the edit summary, as you did here. Looking up the talk page here, it seems I'm not the first person you've accused in this way. As an eleven year Wikipedian and an admin, I'd like to think that none of my edits here are "vandalism" even if, like anyone else, I may occasionally make a mistake! In this case, the edit I made was simply conforming with MOS:DABPRIMARY, so I'm pretty sure it's legitimate. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that :=(L3X1 (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, L3X1. You have new messages at LuK3's talk page.
Message added 17:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- LuK3 (Talk) 17:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted edit on Mukesh Ambani

Hey there. I was wondering if you could explain to me why you accepted this edit? Unless I'm reading the source wrong (which does happen, I'm only human :) ), it pretty clearly indicates his net worth is, in fact, 23 billion. Thanks! bojo | talk | contribs 16:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a quick Google search brings up $23B, which I assume is rounding, and Forbes said on September of 2016 that his NW is $22.7B I quote: "SINGAPORE (September 22, 2016) – Oil and gas tycoon Mukesh Ambani is once again India’s richest person with a net worth of US$22.7 billion."[1] I felt the edit made Wikipedia more precise. L3X1 (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying, but it seems that the linked page indicates his "Real Time Net Worth" is $23B, where it was $22.7B in september, when that article is from. Other profiles from forbes (like Jeff Bezos) have a decimal with them, so I'm pretty sure it isn't rounded. Thanks! --bojo | talk | contribs 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.L3X1 (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2016/09/22/mukesh-ambani-retains-top-spot-as-indias-richest-on-forbes-list/#2cdf804f34fb

Marcellus High School

I can verify that those edits made on Marcellus High School were GFE and perfectly acceptable. Mrs. Wall, Spencer both got married and thus their names changed. Jennifer Carnes has retired. (Apologies if I'm talking wrong, new to it)

Sorry about that. L3X1 (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, you had good intentions. Honest mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacoman3005 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Accepted edit on The Weeknd

Please do not accept changes on biographies of living persons, such as this edit, if no source is provided for the change and the article does not support the content added. If you're not sure, it's perfectly reasonable to leave the edit to be reviewed by somebody else. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ivanvector, Sorry about that. I recall accepting that edit, but I don't see it on the revision history. The only entry the revision history has is from [1]. Where did it go? Next time I'll leave it to be reviewed. L3X1 (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had unreviewed the edit, so it's still in the history but no longer has a "reviewed by ..." note next to it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22 Testing out new signature

lets try this: x2[User:L3X1|L3X1]x2 (x2[User talk:L3X1|Complaints Desk]x2) L3X1 (Complaints Desk) 16:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I won't be able to !vote till the 20th. L3X1 Complaints Desk 15:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Kfar Ahim

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kfar Ahim. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes

As another admin has explained above, it is extremely important that you do not approve pending changes to biography articles that add unsourced content to the page. Shruti Kanwar was protected due to "persistent addition of unsourced personal info in a BLP" and the edits you approved added the exact content that the protection is enabled to prevent. I've undone your approvals and reverted the additions. Please be more careful when reviewing pending changes. Thank you, --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo Sorry about that, I will be more careful. L3X1 Complaints Desk 22:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool user page!

I really liked your favorite wikipedia policies. Hadn't seen either of them. I hope there's a version of WP:URMOM somewhere, it's a third one that you have as a favorite but that seems to have since been deleted. Anyway cheers!--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 21:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf Kirlston Thanks! :) WP:URMOM is not/was not a policy as far as I can tell, I thought of when I was familiarizing myself with WP and was disappointed to see that there was no essay titled that. Have a nice day, and thanks for the kind words. L3X1 Complaints Desk 21:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton Thanks so much! L3X1 Complaints Desk 00:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint Desk?

Hi, can I ask what the rationale behind calling your talk page 'Complaint Desk' in your signature is? I appreciate we all like quirky twists where we can to avoid a rather sterile environment, however I came across this in a welcome message to a new user, an activity you seem to be heavily engaged in tonight, and for those not too familiar with the intricacies of signatures (i.e. the very newbies you are addressing), it is easy to mistake this for an official complaint desk. Although you may not be required to change it, I would suggest you look at the sig and consider modifying for this reason. Rayman60 (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rayman60, I added the "Complaints Desk" portion because my anti-vandalism work inevitably makes a mistake. I see where you are coming from, thanks for pointing this out! I would not want to be mistaken for an Official complaint desk! I have modified it to "My Complaints Desk" as I think that is more positive than "Rant @ Me" :) L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it does look better now and removes the ambiguity. Rayman60 (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich City F.C.

I don't recall reviewing this page. Could you explain further? Thanks Qaei ☎ 20:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qaei This [[2]]edit says in the [[3]] log that is was accepted by you before I unaccepted it pending this conversation. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
L3X1 Yes, that was a mistake on my behalf. Thanks for informing me. Qaei ☎ 20:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Happy editing. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were not bullying: A civility barnstar

Keep calm and carry on.
Your knee jerk apology was unwarranted and out of order. You have been civil from the get go. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the following sources before anything

Please take a look at the sources provided by the other ip editors. A vote wouldn't be fair since the real facts cannot be "voted for," just like you cannot vote for the validity of theory of gravity or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The facts are here, please read these:

1.) http://defencenews.in/article/At-Mach-10,-Taiwans-Hsiung-Feng-III-Anti-China-Missiles-could-be-faster-than-the-BrahMos-18873

2.) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/taiwanese-navy-accidentally-fires-nuclear-8730387

3.) https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1718956/taiwanese-navy-accidentally-fires-hypersonic-missile-at-fishing-vessel-as-tensions-with-enemies-china-ratcheted-up/

Thanks! 27.100.20.252 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will certainly look at the above refs. Please note that the RFC is not a majority vote*, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. *Unless we absolutely have to, and the world will probably end before that happens. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dom

Hello. I'm not sure whether to be more concerned about someone calling themselves a member of the anti-vandal police, or reverts of half-decent edits without explanation. That aside I feel compelled to point out that "appear to constitute vandalism" is clearly wrong.[4] -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi zzuuzz, I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. And sorry for not providing an ES on that diff, I user TW Rollback:Vandalism which doesn't allow an ES to be given, and I didn't really think it was a GFE. Calling the BLP familiarly by a version of his first name "Dom", and adding some unsourced changes doesn't really cut it for GFE. While it isn't obnoxious vandalism, (like: sandwwiches awr porn), it's not following any policies, and was disruptive. What do you think is "clearly wrong" about it? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 00:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get Out

You should immediately withdraw your nomination of Get Out. That is not a serious nomination, the article is clearly notable. You should seriously read the criteria for nominating articles for deletion before you do it again. Koala15 (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Koala15. I beg to differ. In fact, I differ.
You are obviously not a serious editor if you think this is OK. You clearly have no idea what the criteria is for nominating articles for deletion. Koala15 (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:L3X1&oldid=763236944"