Jump to content

User talk:Onel5969

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a WikiGnome.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Borntodeal (talk | contribs) at 02:42, 24 June 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I'd like to recommend we resolve the current editing dispute through dispute resolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

Borntodeal (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969's Talk
Phoenix ... It's a dry heat ...
Born
New York city
NationalityAmerican

Edit count

Archived Material

Hi. From time to time I move pertinent info to archive pages.
2014 items can be found here: User:Onel5969/Talk from 2014 (Edited to remove insignificant sections) First manual archive
2015 items can be found here: User:Onel5969/Talk from 2015 (Edited to remove insignificant sections) Second manual archive

Hi! You might find these handy:

Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 22:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re: Quick question

Hi. Yes, persondata is now dead, per this. I've been removing them as I find them and not adding them to new articles I create. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lugnuts, will keep that in mind moving forward. Onel5969 (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How I found a few references inside the Sister Cities website

I located the pages inside the website by using Google. Navigation provided by the Sister Cities website is frustrating; however, Google crawls websites (unless asked not to) and will return hits that may be difficult or impossible to reach through the site's navigation.

Sorry I did not answer more quickly; was waiting for the discussion to develop. Too bad it was impossible at that moment—inevitably there will be a time of less drama. — Neonorange (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Neonorange, I'll keep that in mind in the future. I was hoping to generate more response on the article as well, so I posted it at US Cities. I patrol a few hundred city pages, and after vandalism and NPOV edits, this is probably the third largest problem with these pages. Folks are always adding or subtracting without any referential support. Not sure what put the bee under the other editor's saddle regarding this. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Hopefully a few more editors will chime in (one way or another, I mean, I could be missing something). Right now, it appears to me there is consensus not to include the note. Anyway, I thought I'd give it a few days before making the correction. Again, thanks for sharing your technique on Sister Cities, you're right, their navigation sucks. Onel5969 (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After further research, I have come across an article in what seems to be a respectable, if perhaps not WP:RS, website that has the current Atlanta city government promising to re-energize their relationships with "estranged" sister cities (my interpretation of that characterization is that no organized volunteer committees exist for the relationship in each of the two cities). For me, the best solution in this case for Atlanta is to leave the sister city and remove the note. An estranged sister is still a sister, and, absent a revocation of the proclamation signed by their respective mayors, Salzburg is still properly sourced as an Atlanta sister city. "Estranged" does not seem a useful note, and the present negative note does not even rise to absence of evidence. — Neonorange (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like sound reasoning to me. Onel5969 (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you've picked a large number of 'Cities' as part of you watch list. How did you come to that? I have a number of American novelists on my watchlist—not so much because of what I know, but rather of what I don't B^€. Do you suppose there's a compilation of vandal ecology? John Stienbeck seems to attract more than his due of American middle school vandals—as protest of required reading (Of Mice and Men or Grapes of Wrath, I guess).— Neonorange (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I first started, I got interested in the Phoenix and Scottsdale articles (where I live). The Phoenix one was in pretty poor shape, and being the sixth largest city in the country I started to work on it. That led me to fixing its structure, which led me to look at other cities. Which then led me to the US City project. After I had gotten Phoenix into decent shape, I started to conform the top 100 US cities (by pop) into the structure suggested by the guidelines of the project. That led me to start keeping watch on them. At some point, I added the next 100, plus another 60 or so which interest me, but aren't necessarily in the top 1000 (e.g. Teaneck, New Jersey, where I grew up). The next group I started to watch over were articles I had done major copy edit work on. I've done probably over 500 of those, but only keep watch over about 50 or so. Then there are the film and film bio articles I keep watch over. There are probably 400 or so of those (I've written about 250 of them). It just sort of morphed. Like you, it's not that I know a lot about the subjects of these articles, but that I set out to fill a gap, then it starts to interest me. One of the first articles I wrote was on Blaise Diesbourg, because when I copy-edited the article on Rum-running in Windsor I saw there wasn't an article on him, and there was a lot of info out there.
Regarding your vandal theory... yes, I think there is. For example, Star Wars gets vandalized frequently, but Citizen Kane does not. In non-film articles, the article on moon-walks gets constantly vandalized. Anyway, keep up the good work. Onel5969 (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:50:24, 2 June 2015 review of submission by DaniFernn


Hello,

I hope all is well :) I have been trying to get this page along with two others up on wikipedia for about 4 months now and they keep getting denied. All pages that I am creating are of notable figures that have enough credentials to be able to have pages. What can I do to get their pages up? Is there anyone that can help me rewrite or edit the page to be able to get it accepted. I would like to get this done as soon as possible


DaniFernn (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DaniFernn - I'm no longer part of the AfC process, so you might want to ask your question at WP:TEAHOUSE. I did take a look at your article, and none of the sources seem to be independent and reliable. Take a look at WP:RS. Are there any magazine or newspaper articles on this guy? But as I said, you should probably ask your question at Teahouse, the folks there are usually pretty quick in responding, and all want to help. Onel5969 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ventdanieljay - Tom Crowl Article

I noticed the last time that I submitted this article it was rejected by Wikipedia. I was just wondering if you could take a quick look at it and see if you think I've done enough to have it pass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tom_Crowl

Thanks,

Daniel Jay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventdanieljay (talk • contribs) 15:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ventdanieljay - I'm no longer involved in the AfC process, so you might want to ask your question on the Teahouse page. However, I did take a look at your article, and it probably still does not meet the notability requirements. The Times article is good, but the others are either not reliable (YouTube), not independent (learn ventriloquism), or just promotional (Amazon). But as I said, you might get a different answer at the Teahouse. Hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Then you can update the information. --Criticalthinker (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it mattered to me, then I would. I monitor those pages not to update them, but to make sure that edits made to them are not vandalism, and if not vandalism, that they are accurate and correct, which your edits were not. Take care. Onel5969 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SHINE Medical Technologies - re-write

Good Morning Onel5969. Would you be able to look at my edit's to let me know if I'm on the right track, before I re-submit it?

Thank you,

PattiMoly99 (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PattiMoly99 - I'm not involved in the AfC process longer. You might want to ask your question at WP:TEAHOUSE, the folks there are helpful, and usually answer pretty promptly. Onel5969 (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technicolor accuracy

Hi Onel5969. It may be true that the term "two-strip Technicolor" is sometimes misused by notable historians, such as AFI and UCLA film archives, but it is in fact inaccurate. And one of the pillars of Wikipedia is accuracy. That is why I believe the term "two-color Technicolor" (or something equally accurate) should be substituted for it in the article. Before I start a section about this on the article's talk page, do you believe there is any room for compromise between us?
Richard27182 (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard27182 - I think the difference is that you want the description of the process to be accurate, while I want the name of the process to be accurate. While the name is a misnomer, it is still the name. Sources of the time all refer to it as two-strip, and many film historians still use the term. Their use of the term is not incorrect, since they are not describing the process, but simply calling the process by its common name. Sort of like we say peanuts, even though they are not nuts, but legumes (peas/beans). Or calling a Koala bear a bear (they're not). The two-strip process was what it was called at the time, and the name stuck. The fact that it is no longer an extant process makes changing it's name a bit superfluous at this point, particularly since all the historical data uses that term. Onel5969 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing charge

      Hi Onel5969 .  I had never heard of "canvassing" before. The reason I contacted a few editors was to try to at least get a few people involved in the discussion because it did not seem to be going anywhere.  I didn't base my choice of whom to contact on any expectation of their agreeing with me.  (I would have had no way of knowing which side they would take on the issue in question.). They were simply editors I'd had contact with before and I felt comfortable contacting them (as opposed to contacting people out of the blue). Please remember that, being a novice, it's inevitable that I am going to be making mistakes here and there. But I am always acting in good faith.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard27182 - That's what I figured... no worries. I just wanted to make you aware of the principle. Probably every editor has made that mistake (I know I have). Thanks for taking the time to talk to me about it here. Take care. Onel5969 (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonic

Good morning (It is 2:33am in Melbourne, Australia. I am from Wellington, New Zealand).

Regarding the Mnemonic article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mnemonic

I am new to editing (first article edit). However I have read thousands of articles.

I checked the revision history. Your alias was stated as reversing in good faith. My entry required to be entered line by line to break down Pi for ease of reading. I checked my entry. I accept I made a mistake with the line "592 Symmetry". Was this the reason you reversed my entry?

The only explanation provided was "Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (Gedium (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place curly bracket curly bracket Help_me curly bracket curly bracket (Gedium edited by replacing the curly bracket character with the words "curly bracket" to circumvent correct behavior) before the question. Again, welcome! – Wdchk (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)" But I was not entering information on the talk page. I am also confused why another member is informing me, when it was you that applied the reversal.[reply]

I checked the good faith article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Specifically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#About_good_faith States "Everyone makes mistakes".

Your help and possibly Wdchk's help would be greatly appreciated in helping me identify where I went wrong.

Thank you. Good night. Sleep well.

Hi Gedium - and welcome to Wikipedia! No, that wasn't the reason. Simply, there seem to be two issues with your edit. First, it doesn't seem to fit the article, as there are no explanation for any of the entries in your list. If that were the only issue, I simply would have sent you a message. However, second, if they are examples of mnemonics, than they should be included in the List of mnemonics, not on the mnemonics page. There is a link provided earlier in the article, and therefore if these are valid examples, they are redundant. Hope that makes sense. Onel5969 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Onel5969 - You are correct about there being a List of mnemonics page it is located under the heading "Applications". I created the Pi mnemonic myself yesterday so there are no references to cite (or how should I go about citing myself?). I believe that the List of mnemonics should be included in the contents section at the top of the page. I strongly argue this point because, first I missed this List of mnemonics link because my attention was drawn to the heading "Some common examples for first letter mnemonics" which infers that it is not easy to find or easy to miss when the visitor is scanning the page for a list of examples, second when the public visit the Mnemonic page; being able to take advantage of the mnemonic devices is of high importance. The contents section appears to be dynamically created. How do we go about adding the List of Mnemonics link to the contents section? Thank you for your patience and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gedium (talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gedium - two things. First, one of the pillars of Wikipedia is no original research. You can't cite yourself, indeed, you can't include anything which is original research. Second, I changed the title of the Applications section to indicate that it is where folks should look for examples of mnemonics, and then they can click on the link. Hope this makes it clearer. Take it easy. Onel5969 (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Mayabazar/archive1

I've opened the peer review for Mayabazar (1957), the first Telugu film article to be attempted for FA class as of now. Feel free to leave comments if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Have a great day! 69.129.235.226 (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help Please :) \ Mere Machine \ Blcole78

Hello One15969,

A page I am trying to create keeps getting rejected. I thought I was using a correct template to make this page. Below is a link. What may I do to help this? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers, Brandy Cole


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mere_Machine

Blcole78 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Brandy Cole[reply]

Hi Brandy - I'm not involved in the AfC process any longer, but you could ask your question at WP:TEAHOUSE. The folks there are pretty responsive. Onel5969 (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your kind message to me concerning the article on Fort Worth, TX

Hi Onel5969,

Thank you for offering to help me learn the ropes. I was actually struggling with the idea of how to edit the articles and also general usage. I tried to cite the information but everytime I did the system would put it as [6] despite the fact that there was already another source with that number. Not to mention, now the information has been erased. By the way, I honestly need help with pretty much everything. I guess I just don't understand the set up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Worth,_Texas — Preceding unsigned comment added by FWStar7 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FWStar7 - No worries. Do you have a link for the citation? If you do, just paste it here on my talk page. Then I can make the edit and put the citation in, after which you can use it as an example. Don't be afraid to ask questions, most editors will take the time to respond. The vast majority of us are here attempting to make the project better. Happy editing! Onel5969 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Here is the link to the source I used. Much of the information is similar but I thought the article in the link probably stated things a little better. https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hdf01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FWStar7 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, put it back, with the citation. Onel5969 (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name of US cities in infobox

According to WP:INFOBOXGEO, the title of a geographic placename article's infobox should be the same as it's title. For the 20 AP designated cities for which just the city name is acceptable, it should be unnecessary to list "city, state" in the infobox.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about infoboxgeo, but US City is the more specific guideline when dealing with US Cities, and as per wiki guidelines, you should always go to the more specific. Onel5969 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the US City guidelines?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Take a look at the infobox. Take it easy. Onel5969 (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the guideline is supposed to be for the majority of US places, which are going to require a state diambiguator per WP:USPLACE and so the title of the infobox will be the same. It's been agreed that the 20 cities listed in the AP's stylebook don't need states in their titles, and so according to the more general guidelines the infobox should be the same as the title. The fact that they chose New York City as the infobox example is only because it's one of the more well known US cities, and not actually recommending that the infobox be titled "New York City, New York" (which hasn't been the case for several years)--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. That's for all US Cities. The project has had this discussion several times. If you look at the infobox example, which does not list a specific city, it clearly states: "City Name, State Name", regardless of whether or not the state name is in the article title. Onel5969 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gilbert

Hi There!

I have found various new sources for the following page Draft: Alex Gilbert including a TV show he appeared on in New Zealand recently and some more information on his book.

Please help and give some advice. Thanks, Dmitry -- DmitryPopovRU (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DmitryPopovRU - I'm not involved in the AfC process any longer, but you could ask your question at WP:TEAHOUSE. The folks there are pretty responsive. Onel5969 (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati Sister Cities

There's gonna be a meeting that goes down tomorrow between the mayor of Cincinnati and Amman to make them sister cities. I wanted to update the page early considering it's 99.9% going to happen.

http://www.fox19.com/story/29294495/sister-cities-cincinnati-and-amman-jordan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vensmash10 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vensmash10 Per WP:CRYSTAL, you shouldn't jump the gun. There was also another one on the list that wasn't accurate, I just removed it, Cincinnati currently only has 8. When the official announcement happens, that's when you should make the change. But thanks for bringing it to a talk page. Onel5969 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Hello Onel5969. I'm filing a request for help with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution concerning that Technicolor dispute.  If I understand the instructions correctly, I'm supposed to notify everyone who is or was involved in the discussion.  In order to comply, I included your name.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Richard27182 - you'll look a little silly, since their is no dispute. Consensus has been reached. The fact you don't agree with the consensus is a different matter. Onel5969 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2015 (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 (☎) 17:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bots


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the thread is at ANI not AN. This Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Onel5969 misuse of rollback is the thread where you are mentioned. MarnetteD|Talk 16:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MarnetteD - I had found it and was responding to this unconstructive editor's absurd statement. He's definitely a non-constructive editor, he's been blocked several time in the past few months and continues to attempt to insert a non-neutral viewpoint into articles. It's difficult to deal with someone who has no compulsion about the 3RR rule (he doesn't "revert", but simply re-edits as a way around it). Any suggestions on how to deal with this individual? Onel5969 (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked into what is happening at the article in question. The only suggestions that I have is that you present your case clearly (which I see that you have pretty much done at the ANI thread) and try not to take things personally. Now I know that can be difficult, but, I think you are doing okay there as well. My apologies if this is not the help that you were looking for but hang in there. MarnetteD|Talk 18:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, MarnetteD - No, don't go to any trouble. Your direction was what I was intending to do. But if you want a laugh, go take a look at the ANI page, and at the article in question. Not sure why editors who are so disruptive and combative are allowed to continue to edit on Wikipedia. Onel5969 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

resubmitted article on Alfred Gerteiny

Hi - I have resubmitted an article and hope that it meets the guidelines this time. If you need photos resubmitted please let me know at chasehillary@gmail.com The Wiki page link (original submission) is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alfred_G._Gerteiny

Thanks

Hillary Chase (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hillary Chase - I'm not involved in the AfC process any longer. You should post your question on WP:TEAHOUSE, they are very helpful and responsive there. Onel5969 (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murder, My Sweet

Your revert of my edit will remain unchallenged by me, but I would invite you to read the book to see if it needed to be supported to make the revert necessary. Erickson's own synopsis of the adaptation being "remarkably faithful" to the novel contains two major plot changes right off the bat (Marlowe was not suspected of Marriott's murder; Anne was not only not the Grayle daughter, she was also not a "misunderstood good girl"). I would also look askance at any source that has so much trouble with three character's names in one paragraph, Velma's most of all. ("Velda" as a typo is a stretch).

While the alterations of plot details are numerous, and significant to an enjoyment of the novel, they are not significant enough to me to find a source somewhere to support the addition. Erickson's point about it being "pure Chandler" is accurate enough, even if he was not saying it as praise. Cheers.--Reedmalloy (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reedmalloy - I don't have a problem with the content, simply the lack of citation. The citation which is currently in that paragraph, as you point out, says that it is remarkably faithful. To read the book and then insert that into the article is original research, and one of the few things actually forbidden on Wikipedia. I thought your other edits on the plot were well-done. Again, not trying to argue with you, but that type of comment definitely needs a reliable independent source. But keep up the good work, and thank you for opening a civil dialogue regarding this. Onel5969 (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo, compadre. Frankly, I hadn't thought of it as OR, so your point is a good one. After the fact I noted how many user-box characteristics we have in common. Thank you for the tone of your reply. Refreshing to encounter.--Reedmalloy (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right back at you Reedmalloy. Stay in touch, always need to support those of us willing to slog our way through these older films. Onel5969 (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Holknekt

Please take a look at the article Per Holknekt that I recently created. I am planning to nominate it for DYK in the next few days so any help or improvements are welcomed. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BabbaQ! Really long time no "speak". Be happy to. Is there something different about a DYK nomination that I should be aware of? Onel5969 (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Adeline de Walt Reynolds has been nominated for Did You Know

FYI

Hello Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that you have been mentioned here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unauthorized deletion of backlog in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.3F. I can't actually tell what it is about but as the OP didn't inform you about the thread I wanted to make sure you knew about it. Cheers in spite of this. MarnetteD|Talk 03:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks MarnetteD - This was an idiot editor who was pissed off since I deleted an erroneous vandal template he put on my talkpage, because I kept deleting the nonsense he kept posting on my page, and ignored requests for him not to post on my talk page. Was unaware of his even further ratcheting up his harassment. I guess he was accusing me of vandalism through his lack of understanding of WP:OWNTALK. Onel5969 (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for filling me in O. It seemed a bit on the WP:HARRASS side but I didn't have time to look further into it. MarnetteD|Talk 04:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lol. I seem to be getting harassed a bit lately.  :) Onel5969 (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&oldid=668407070"