User talk:Murph9000

Murph9000

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Pleasedontkillmepls EditBOTtheHelpfulWikipedian (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

69.179.107.71: I am NOT vandalizing

• Persona and reception of Roman Reigns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Redirected pages should not be included in categories. Especially not 2 that redirect to the exact same place. And that Roman article is so whiny and is NOT needed. I gave a reason. Wrestlers get heat, it's their job. We dont need a whiny article talking about how everyone hates Roman, we get enough of that on wrestling forums and comment sections. I blanked it because I dont know how to nominate a page for deletion. 69.179.107.71 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

See WP:INCOMPATIBLE, redirects of that type certainly can be in categories. As for blanking a page because you 1) don't like it, and 2) don't know how to nominate it for deletion; what you did was not acceptable and absolutely not how things are done in Wikipedia. Murph9000 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wwe brawl

Hi Murph9000, I just wanted to let you know that I have declined your speedy deletion request of Wwe brawl because the previous deletion was via speedy and not a deletion discussion. This is excluded from the G4 criteria - This criterion also does not cover content...that was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107: Ok, but are you sure about that? WWE Brawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (uppercase) was recently deleted under G4 based on the old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Brawl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Shortly after that was deleted, the same user created Wwe brawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (lowercase). I.e. I'm asserting possible G4 based on the other article with near identical name, and not based on the earlier deletions of this article. If you are certain it does not apply, that's fair enough, it just seemed like there was a reasonable chance that it would qualify if both recent creations were highly similar. Obviously, I can't see the deleted versions, so that's entirely your discretion. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise WWE Brawl existed. The lack of capitalisation should have been a red flag. I've deleted this now and the user responsible has been indefed so hopefully we won't get any more recreations, but if you notice any let me know and I can look at protecting the pages. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107: Thanks, and no problem. FYI, I've just created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wwe90000000, as I spotted possible socking around this. I'm not asking you to get involved in the SPI, unless you want to, just to let you know it's there. Murph9000 (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Multiple reverts

• Simson Garfinkel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not trying to bite your head off here, but please be careful and check to make sure that the revision you're reverting has not been done already. Thank you. :) Gunnerfreak from Puzzle Pirates : Talk to me 13:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@SnivyFan1995: Yeah, sorry about that. It's partly an issue with Twinkle's interface, and partly a brief brain-burp from me. Your revert left some serious BLP issues[1] remaining from the IPs before the one you reverted. I was looking at longer diffs to find a clean version and used the Twinkle rollback buttons on the right instead of the left. Fortunately, I'm in the habit of analysing diffs after most reverts, so caught it. Murph9000 (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that from the remaining reverts, so no worries! :) As you can probably see from my contributions, I'm new here; but I'm not new to using MediaWiki, what with the experience I have on a game-related wiki. Again, thank you for covering the other issues I missed. Gunnerfreak from Puzzle Pirates : Talk to me 13:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic talk page messages and talk page archiving

• Talk:Main Page (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for the quick fix of my mistake by reverting — Can i ask a new question related to main page again ? (Jkioooo (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

@Jkioooo: If your question is narrowly specific to editorial issues around the content of the Main Page (and not some other page or unrelated to content), you can ask it there. If it is not directly related to the main page itself, you should not ask it there. The top of Talk:Main Page has some links to other places where questions may be asked. If it is off-topic, it may be removed again in the interests of not distracting from the intended purpose of that talk page. See also Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Although not an issue with your previous edits, please be aware of WP:NOTFORUM. Murph9000 (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines , like this Please provide me "Wikipedia achieved page guidelines" . {Jkioooo (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)}

@Jkioooo: I don't have a page for that (it may or may not exist), but it's really quite simple. Don't edit the archives in any way, other than in very narrow and exceptional circumstances. Experienced editors do occasionally edit them for a variety of narrowly scoped and specific reasons (don't ask me to enumerate all of them, as it's complex and needs very careful case-by-case judgement applied). New or inexperienced editors should generally not be editing them, or attempting to police the editing of them. Knowing when it's ok to do something other than read the archives is really one of those things which comes with experience. Murph9000 (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanq for your excellent reply (Jkioooo (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC))

Robert Dorsay entry reverted

• Robert Dorsay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Robert Dorsay is the German film industry's most famous victims of the Nazis. Overheard making a joke about Hitler while in a restaurant, he was arrested, tried and beheaded on October 29, 1943.

When I noticed that the wikipedia entry in English didn't provide this central fact of his life (although you can read all about in the German entry), so I added it.

And now I find you deleted it when you could have easily confirmed it yourself. For example, Volkrat Stampa: Robert Dorsay - Es ging um sein Leben (Sujet-Verlag, Bremen 2016). I can see deleting something where internal evidence suggests something is off, but when it's a straight-forward instance of historical fact (i.e., beheaded by the Nazis), you really ought to try using your computer. You will forgive my tone of annoyance.

cordially, Michael J Lewis

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.42.40 (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2017‎ (UTC)

Hello, Michael. As explained by the information linked to in the message left on your talk page, your edit was reverted for being unsourced. Per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, it is the responsibility of the editor adding information to cite appropriate sources. As the message said, you are welcome to add the information again, with an appropriate reference attached to it. See Help:Referencing for beginners for detailed instructions about how to provide a reference in a form which satisfies Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

My edits are not false

• Mexicans of European descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mexico does conduct racial censuses, but only for indigenous and afrodescendant peoples, not Europeans [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pob3qu3 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pob3qu3: I did not say they were false, just unsourced. As the message on your talk page explained, you are welcome to make the change if you include an appropriate citation of a reliable source to support it. See Help:Referencing for beginners for detailed instructions on how to turn your source(s) into a reference to include with your edit. This is required for one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies, verifiability. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Russian Connections

• Presidency of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ryanfoster99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Ryanfoster99

Hello, as I've seen you've undone my information on the CIA's lack of evidence. I have tried to reason with opposition and reached a consensus, but I am only told to remove it. I will not tolerate this bullying, and if we cannot reach a fair consensus then I have every right to post this 100% factual information. Is there anything that is wrong with my particular source? It is plenty reliable, as it isn't even a pro-Trump website.2601:483:200:8E1:ACDD:BFCF:D383:A5DA (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)RDF

The problem is your continued wilful disregard for Wikipedia policies, the latest of which is WP:BLOCK EVASION. I have absolutely nothing to say to you beyond that, for the duration of your block. Murph9000 (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Exuse Me

Moved to User talk:Boeing329

 – Murph9000 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2017‎ (UTC)

User talk:Universität Bremen

I'd IAR their username/COI, as the account is verified on the German Wikipedia, which allows official accounts of companies/organizations so long as they do not edit promotionally. Technically it's a violation of our WP:ISU, but it'd be a pain to explain that the different language Wikipedias having different rules means that a perfectly acceptable username on the German Wikipedia isn't allowed here. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ks0stm: Yeah, fine by me, and not unreasonable. I opted for just the talk page coi-username, rather than WP:UAA, as it's not the typical commercial promo stuff. Of all the COI users, an old and respectable university should be the least likely to be problematic (I'd hope). I suggest maybe a signed {{Mbox}} at the top of their their talk page or something, as an admin seal of exceptional approval, to avoid future issues. Murph9000 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for believing me! :)

Thanks your awesome i love wikipedia and all pages! Thank u for believing me! Monkey88888888 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Sofab666

Murph9000, when Sofab666 got your warning, he thought that you had already blocked him, prompting him to create the attack page.

• not saying its your fault or anything, I think there was simply a misunderstanding. The garmine ^(talk) 00:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It was not an attack page. Come on. I thought i was sending a private message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofab666 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, the first edit was clearly not with the intention of constructively collaborating to create an encyclopaedia, in addition to being a blatant violation of the WP:BLP policy. The attack page, frankly I don't buy that. I actually pretty much WP:DGAF about the attack page, but it still is what it is in terms of Wikipedia policy. Murph9000 (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks. :) Boeing329 (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

JavaScript RegExp problem

I noticed your JavaScript genius userbox, and was hoping you could help me with a problem I've run into writing a userscript.

Please see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject JavaScript#Nested RegExp.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 11:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Replied there. Murph9000 (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Emir of Wikipedia#Unexplained removal of content

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Emir of Wikipedia#Unexplained removal of content. A reply to our discussion by Trendmeister was posted on my page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

@Emir of Wikipedia: Thanks, I'll turn my attention to this in the near future (likely sometime today). Murph9000 (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi I just wanted to say thanks for being understanding. I like to look around Wikipedia pages for quality of life edits like that comma, so thanks for keeping it there. I agree with that placement. Dud190 (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dud190: No problem. The small edits can be just as worthwhile, we just need to be particularly careful with commas. The subtle placement of them can be a fine art sometimes, and can significantly change the meaning. If you've not read it before, MOS:COMMA has some interesting and worthwhile discussion and advice. Happy editing. Murph9000 (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Good spot with that copyvio - your keen eye helps make Wikipedia even more awesome. Keep it up! -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 21:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Murph9000 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

AIV

• Lawrence Page (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alphabet Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hey man, I'm sorry if I came off a little blunt. Edits that really don't require a warning before reporting to AIV are users that just spam "PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS" and such - Obvious vandals. There's almost always somewhere else for every other category. Be it WP:SPI, WP:ANI, WP:ANEW, or even WP:RFPP. Consider AIV to be akin to dialing 911. It's an emergency that needs someone to step in right this second to stop. SQL^{Query me!} 05:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@SQL: Well, I thought the extreme trolling in the form of impersonating one of the tech industry's most notable names, combined with inserting obvious WP:CB (totally unsourced (discounting the fake source in one of the edits), and easy to verify as false as well) into the company's page rose to that level. It's also WP:BLPREMOVE. I've dealt with this particular trolling before, from an IP editor, and took the time to double check facts behind the absurd looking edits. I do agree with AIV being for the obvious cases only. We have different interpretations of this particular case, and that's ok, my "success" rate at AIV is pretty good, so I'm content to be "wrong" in this case (even if I don't honestly believe I'm wrong). I'm not going to get into an argument over a troll, if I can avoid it, so I'll question the judgement call once but no more than that. Stepping back from it is the correct and pragmatic thing for me to do, to avoid any silly conflict. On the chance my judgement actually is off about the case, it lets someone else make the calls I was making. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully the point I was trying to make was understood, I don't care about your success rate or anything else outside of protecting the encyclopedia. AIV is for emergencies requiring immediate admin assistance. I disagree that this case - although someone did EVENTUALLY block the user - was an emergency requiring a no-warning block, and did waste several people's time. Until we meet again, I suppose. SQL^{Query me!} 05:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@SQL: Yes, the point is well taken, and your comments noted. Where there's reasonable doubt I typically do go through warnings, for the purpose of eliminating that doubt. The point about success rate is that I rarely see denied as a response to my reports there, so usually someone agrees with my call. I certainly have no interest in pushing any of the big red buttons where there are not clearly justified. Happy editing. Murph9000 (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

not vandailism just slarification

my page got everything from here: http://www.dailychump.org/toenail-fungus-everything-you-need-to-know/ thanks for not deleting me yet that means a lot. i love you btw — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob man guy dude (talk • contribs) 02:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

dude youre my favorite editor!

bob man guy dude here, just saying youre so cool. honestly i really like the stuff you do. thanks

Bob man guy dude (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It's amusing...

...that even though your reversion was oversighted (as a follow-on to oversighting the edit you reverted) I can still send 'thanks' for it. :) Jeh (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jeh: Yeah. I guess from your comment on the SPI, you saw the diff before it was suppressed. In case you didn't, it probably wasn't all that severe (not that severity entered into my decision to revert and request suppression), but was not appropriate or useful for an article talk page and certainly had zero editorial value for the article content. I'm pretty sure my edit summary was just "WP:OUTING" on the end of the usual TW revert summary, so not entirely sure why that was also suppressed, but also not bothered that it was. Murph9000 (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll take care of my own talk page, thanks. But I appreciate the gesture of support. Jeh (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jeh: Sure, not a problem. I saw you'd already reverted that particular message, so it was different to a new message (into harassment territory), but I'm quite happy to let you deal with all cases which don't cross one of the serious hard limits. Happy editing. Murph9000 (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that yet another good editor (you) had to spend time on this LTA... but the ruling we got at ANI may well be worth it. So, thanks for getting involved! See my last comment there. Jeh (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jeh: Thanks, and it's no real bother for me to deal with them (I just can't directly put a hard barrier in their way). I don't know what the real longer term answer is for this case, but it has a slightly bigger spotlight directed at it than usual, so something may come of that. The official LTA process is mostly just cataloguing and documentation, I don't know that it would make much difference here (but I'm not opposed to it, if the combined wisdom thinks it's worth it). In some ways, the status quo is not so bad, as it's fairly easily identifiable. It would still be nice if the disruption went away, of course. Today's glitch in the process was mostly due to RFPP being backlogged / slow at present, which certainly isn't always the case. It's not completely unusual for RFPP to be having a bad day, but I've also had quite a few recent positive experiences with it in terms of response time. I threw a couple of question-suggestions at the SPI case page, so we can see what the admin wisdom thinks of them. Murph9000 (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcoming users

Hey! Thanks for that message as I'm always open to criticism to better my edits besides how I help this wiki as a whole. I was wondering if maybe there was a go-to list of do's and don't's regarding welcoming practices.-🐦Do☭torWho42 (📼) 08:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Replied to original thread at User talk:DoctorWho42. Murph9000 (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janagewen

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yamla (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me (the LTA sock, not Yamla), just more extreme bad-faith from this globally-locked and indeffed persistent WP:EVASION case. Murph9000 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a protected page

Hello Murph9000! I made a request here Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Net_neutrality. I noticed that you had made some posts on that page, and I wanted to ask and make sure I was filling out the request in a correct way (It's the first time I have put in a protected page request, so I'm not sure on the etiquette) --Popcrate (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Popcrate: Yeah, you got the technical bits of it right. The request rationale seems reasonable enough as well. I won't predict whether the admins will protect or decline, that can be a quite subtle choice for preemptive protection. Your concerns seem valid, it's just a question of whether the combination of recent history on the article and the current significance of the topic convinces them. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you are right about the recent edit history (also this might possibly be TOO preemptive). Either way, thanks for the response. Now I know how to request :) --Popcrate (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Authority control

Dear Murph

I am sorry that I could not get in contact with you sooner. There have been things going on in my real life and I do not always have access to the internet. I have obsessive–compulsive disorder and sometimes, when I get stressed out over things, I have a tendency to obsessive, repetitious activity. The placing of a single wikitemplate, going through multiple categories, is a perfect example of that. I try to channel this into constructive behavior, which was in fact what I thought I was doing, but it appears that this only creates more problems for others at a different end of wikipedia. For this I sincerely apologize. I knew that it was constructive when new boxes appeared at the end of articles. I figured that if I left it on pages and they turned out blank, they would just appear once some one at wikidata filled in the appropriate profile. I do not know how to find out if an article will end up having a template appear at the end or not, nor have I figured out how to create wikidata profiles for pages that end up turning out blank. For now on, I will immediately delete an ac template if it turns out to be blank.

Sincerely, --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

cv at Female child molesters

looks like you didn't quite finish all the steps for copyright violation complaints in Female child molesters. i added the entry in Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2017 May 13 for you.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 23:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chris Capoccia: No, I completed the reporting process. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2017 May 12. It was May 12 when I started reporting it, just the clock happened to roll over while I was composing my report. Murph9000 (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Any opinion?

On my mention to you in the village pump, why can't there be the way I would like it and still have an example like you said? 68.228.254.131 (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello M. In regards to our discussion last month this IP 172.56.15.90 (talk · contribs) is being used today. I suspect you are already aware of it but I thought I'd leave the link anyway. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Danial Schon

Hi Murph9000, not sure why the main listing for Danial Schon is being redirecting to Schon Properties -- can you please assist? I did see that you noticed some activity on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Danial_Schon Mahmoodyaqub (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

eternally-reopening edit request vandal

Is there a named account behind this LTA? Meters (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Meters: It seems quite likely to me that there probably is an indeffed account somewhere in this user's history, based on their behaviour, but I don't know the name of it. The style of the attacks / harassment / threats is familiar to me from sometime in the last few months (abuse on a different set of articles), but I can't immediately remember the details. Murph9000 (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. Just wondering. Obviously not a new user, and I recognize the style too. Meters (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you misunderstanding

You don't even understand the situation. I just don't want someone to intervene. Please remove your warning languages right now! 100.38.114.244 (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No. Murph9000 (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong answer! You should say: "Yes." 100.38.114.244 (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No. Murph9000 (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong answer again! You should say: "Sorry, my bad. I'll delete it right now." 100.38.114.244 (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour? Murph9000 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Stop playing game with me! That's not funny!100.38.114.244 (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is, that's one of the all time great comedy sketches. Murph9000 (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

(Sigh) No wonder you always got 0 grade on exam. Cause you always put wrong answers. Do you even study?100.38.114.244 (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Chortle Irondome (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position! Murph9000 (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

No you don't! Anyway, IP blocked for 31 hours. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

In color! Enjoy! [[3]] Irondome (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

:(talk page watcher) Man, this was a classic show :D *thumbs up* — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 13:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Promotional reference spam

• Cod liver oil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A manufacturer paid for a study and the study is only listed on the manufacturer's page. Wouldn't that be construed as "marketing" (or is it in violation of other Wikipedia rules)? So Kindly Remove "However, free fatty acids and acid value may not be the correct marker to reflect the oxidation level of this product.[9][10][11]"

9. "Scientific Analysis of Dr. Jacob Friest". Retrieved November 11, 2016. 10. "Scientific Analysis of Dr. Jacob Friest". Retrieved November 11, 2016. 11. "Scientific Analysis of Oxidation Test Reports by Dr. Vicki Schlegel". Retrieved November 11, 2016. Caseyclanton (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Caseyclanton: Ok, that changes things significantly, which is why it's extremely important to provide an edit summary. What I saw initially was removal of sourced content without any explanation, which is a very common form of disruption from new users. The explanation makes all the difference and changes it from questionable (even potentially malicious), to quite reasonable and constructive. So, thanks for explaining, and I've removed it again. I've replaced my original welcome message on your talk page with one which has a bit more information in it, which should help you find your way around a bit better. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Murph9000 Thanks for much for understand my Talk. Caseyclanton (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Short-term protection of your talk page

12 hours to stop this nonsense. Favonian (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

...or unprotect, let them revert again after being clearly warned, and block for WP:9000RR TimothyJosephWood 18:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Favonian: Thanks. For the record, it wasn't bothering me all that much, but I'm fine with a short semi-protection. Murph9000 (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Why Deletion?!

Hey there, you left a message on my page/article I have created saying that there needs to be at least one reference. I have now completed the reference and linked all references. If the message isn't taken down in 7 days the page gets deleted so would you be able to remove it if you think I have fixed the problems? Thanks.

Noahtyrell (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)noahtyrellNoahtyrell