User talk:Murph9000

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, or another talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Context: Please include sufficient context in your message to enable me to quickly and easily identify what you are talking about. If it relates to something I did more than around 24 hours ago, this is particularly helpful. Where appropriate, please include a link to the relevant page(s).
General questions and help: If you have a general question or are looking for general help with something, please ask at either the Help Desk or Teahouse, for a faster response. If I have answered your question on one of those pages, please post any followup questions and replies there.
Deletion and warnings: If you are about to leave me a message regarding deletion of a page, or a notice / warning message that I left on your talk page, please carefully read the appropriate notice below before leaving me a message.

Thank you!

Deletion

If I nominated your page for deletion, please be aware of a few things, and think about them before leaving me a message.

You do not own any articles or content on Wikipedia, not even those you created or worked hard on.
I nominated the page due to a good faith belief that it may qualify for deletion under the established deletion policy. That means that I believed it may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Occasionally, something nominated for deletion might be suitable for inclusion in a different form (i.e. if it was significantly changed to meet the content guidelines), or as part of an existing article, instead of a standalone article.
It's not personal, it's just me trying to assist with maintaining the overall qualify of Wikipedia.
Nomination and deletion are two distinct things. If I nominated your page for deletion, I did not delete your page, it was deleted by an administrator who reviewed my nomination and agreed with it.
The reasons for nomination should be clearly explained in a message left on your talk page.
If you want the page to be restored, there is nothing I can do to assist with that, please do not ask me. Use the official deletion review process, or the requests for undeletion process.

Please read the deletion policy and the message(s) on your talk page before leaving a message here, as I reserve the right to be grumpy with people who fail to do so! Please do not ask me to explain things which have already been explained by the messages on your talk page, and the information links in the messages.

Warnings If I placed a warning notice on your talk page, it means that I have a good faith belief that you may have done something against the policies and guidelines. If you are someone who is genuinely here to build an encyclopaedia, I'm actually trying to help you, by drawing your attention to a potential problem, to possibly help you avoid getting blocked from editing.

Welcome!

Hello, Murph9000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Anar chyte 10:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Video games

Hi Murph9000! You are receiving this message because we've noticed your excellent edits on video game-related articles. We need your help at the Video games WikiProject! There is much work to do, so please head over to the project page and help us enhance and increase the coverage of video game related articles on Wikipedia!

Questions from Notgoingtotellyou

Thanks for the welcome. How do I get access to all the law and social science related databases without having to individually sign up for each? Can I even get access to it? In the future once I clean up my computers what's stopping the Chinese from inserting a virus on my talk page so when I access it I get unknowingly infected? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notgoingtotellyou (talk • contribs) 18:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC) And how did you know my name.?😄Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Notgoingtotellyou: You may find some useful information at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library to answer your first two questions. As for the Chinese (MSS, presumably) hacking your Wikipedia talk page, nothing other than it is technically extremely close to impossible to do that (please don't try to debate me on that point, or try to convince me it is possible, it's not possible if you stick to normal safe computing practices). Wikipedia talk pages are not, and have never been, a conduit for computer viruses. While I don't doubt that the world's intelligence services probably do read pages here from time to time, and may even do the occasional bit of editing (the CIA have been doing their own type of online encyclopaedia/almanac since before Wikipedia existed, in the form of The World Factbook), they have far better and easier ways to attack people than via Wikipedia. --Murph9000 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC

I'm not going to argue with you I'm not that kind of guy, just wondered if it's possible or not. How did you know it was the mss hacking me , are there ip logs within wiki suggesting this?Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Notgoingtotellyou: Ok, cool. It's just one of those types of things which sometimes people try to convince me is possible, but without any reliable source to support their claims, and it is an area where I do have a few decades of expertise. As for my comment about the MSS, that was kinda half serious and half a joke, due to you describing fears of "the Chinese". I have no specific reason to believe the MSS are after you. With software, it is usually quite difficult to prove that something is 100% impossible, but in the specific case of MediaWiki talk pages, the fundamental way that the software operates basically makes it about as close to 100% impossible as you usually can get without physically disconnecting the network connection. MediaWiki markup simply does not have the technical characteristics required to enable transmission of a virus, so they would have to perform criminal intrusions of the Wikimedia Foundation's servers and somehow remain undetected to even come remotely close to achieving that, something which should basically be highly unlikely, as some of the WMF staff and volunteers have very good technical skills. You are no more at risk from computer viruses on Wikipedia, than on any other well maintained and non-malicioous website. --Murph9000 (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I trust you, hehe and don't doubt that wiki has went through stuff like this in the past and has great tech staff and other industry ones that can be called in in times of need. Thanks for your detailed description and look forward to talking to you in the future.Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering how my user page got reverted to an earlier version. I understand taking off the Chinese stuff but how can you put back the same stuff I already promised them I wouldn't talk about. I'm a man of my word even with hackers and dictatorial governments. Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Notgoingtotellyou: It wasn't me. It was Lankiveil (talk), a quite senior administrator. All I can tell you is what is in the page history, the comment on the most recent edit: Reverting to last clearly ok version. I guess there was some content on the page which was considered not ok and necessary to completely zap (the revisions have been deleted, which is slightly unusual).

I suggest you talk to them nicely, and it may be a good idea to apologise for doing anything wrong (I have no idea if you did something wrong, it's just an idea). I'm really rather surprised that you didn't get a message explaining it on your talk page. Check your email, just in case you got a message that way, it's less common, but an administrator might use email if they want to send you a private message for some reason.

If there is content currently on the page which should not be there, you should be fine to edit the page and remove it. I strongly suggest not adding any of the content which got deleted by Lankiveil (whatever it was, I can't see it), or anything similar to it, at least until you know for sure what the problem was.

--Murph9000 (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't leave an email on file at least not one that isn't hacked. I will erase my black market one and western corporate assistance one as I promised. Every time I've gotten close to them I suddenly start hearing about funerals, poisoning and kidnapping back to China so I think I'll keep my distance from them. Thanks for your quick replies.Notgoingtotellyou (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For obvious reasons I won't go into that content, except to say that it contained material that was actionable under the Oversight policy. More generally, user pages are not the place for lengthy political statements. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Lankiveil: Thanks for the input and clarification. I quite understand not discussing the specifics, and I neither want nor need to know any of the specific details myself. That's entirely between you and Notgoingtotellyou (talk), as it should be. My involvement is just from answering some questions (originally in the teahouse). I'm overall quite in favour of, and support, WP:UPNOT and related policies, and generally keeping real world politics out of WP beyond WP:NPOV articles on them. --Murph9000 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes cancellation

Murph9000, why did you delete my article, The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes cancellation. That was a bad thing to do! --MML Master (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MML Master: I did not delete The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes cancellation. I nominated it for deletion for the reasons clearly explained in the message left on your talk page. It was deleted by a Wikipedia administrator who reviewed my nomination, and evidently agreed with me that it was not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have nothing more to say on this matter, please do not contact me again about it. If you have any further concerns, questions, or comments, please raise them at WP:AN or some other appropriate venue. --Murph9000 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heineken Green Room in Singapore

Please take a look at WP:OVERTAGGING. Thank you.--ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ukexpat: Noted, and I will keep it in mind. Having looked at the article again, I believe all of the tags I added qualify as "fair comment" and highlight specific concerns with the article. The mistakes I did make is that I should have combined all tags within {{multiple issues}}, not just the tags I added myself, a mistake which I have now rectified. I also should have given more consideration to the overall combination of your tags and my tags, once I saw that you had been active on it as well, but something else stole my attention.

Please note that although the history would suggest that I added my tags 7 minutes after you added your tags, there were actually no tags visible to me on the article at the point that I clicked to add mine. Your tags were added while I had the article open and was considering the issues that needed to be addressed, so I did not see them until after my tags were saved.

Please feel free to remove (or move to the article's talk page) any of my tags which you feel are unfair, too minor, or not of immediate concern. You have my explicit permission and encouragement to do that (not that it's strictly necessary). Equally, if you feel such an edit should come from me, I'm happy to reconsider any specific tags you care to mention.

--Murph9000 (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dot Advertising Agency

Dear Murph9000, regarding the deletion for Dot Advertising Agency page, i don't understand how you see it as a promotional object not an organisational page as i've read what is been wrote on the other advertising agencies pages and tried to write what matches our company in the article. So kindly check it out once again and let me know how an organisational page would look like to you. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaledkanoon (talk • contribs) 10:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Khaledkanoon: From what I can see, I was not the person who nominated Dot Advertising Agency for deletion, and I certainly did not delete it. I placed a standard cautionary notice on your talk page in an attempt to educate you in regard to Wikipedia's policies. The notice (and the previous speedy deletion notices, added by someone else) contains links to the relevant policies and guidelines. You have created the page twice now, and it has been deleted twice by Wikipedia administrators, so you are running the risk of being blocked from editing, and my cautionary notice is to ensure that you are aware of that and potentially help you avoid getting blocked. Please read WP:COMPANY for details on what is required for inclusion of an article about a company on Wikipedia. I strongly advise you not to attempt simply create the article again, but to use the AfC process to create it through a reviewed drafting process, if you are certain that it meets the criteria of WP:COMPANY. Additionally, you should read the information provided to you in the welcome notice on your talk page. If you have any further questions or concerns, my talk page is really the wrong place, so you should ask any questions at either the teahouse or help desk and take any concerns or complaints to WP:AN. If you genuinely want to contribute positively to Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia, none of us really want to see you get blocked, but it your only purpose here is to promote or advertise a company, then you are on the wrong website. --Murph9000 (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse host invitation

Hi! Murph9000, thanks for visiting the Teahouse! As an experienced editor, your knowledge is very valuable to new editors. Teahouse Hosts help new editors at the Teahouse and beyond. If you'd like to get involved in assisting new editors at the Teahouse, please learn more here. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts

The software didn't notify me of edit conflicts, either on the help desk or on the article. I did notice, however that my edit gave a negative size change, so was in the process of reverting it when you did yours. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: Oh, that's odd. Something must be broken in the latest release of MediaWiki, I guess? Not good if that can happen randomly with little visible warning to people who do not vigilantly check history after editing. Murph9000 (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I and others have seen occasional failures to notify e/c in the past. It's obviously not totally broken as it did notify me of a conflict when my reversion of my edit clashed with your reinsertion of yours. We'll just have to keep a careful eye on it. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: Ok, I guess I've always been lucky. I tend to fairly obsessively check history and diffs after editing, and have always found MW's edit conflict detector to be reliable in the past. I have mentioned it at WP:VPT. Murph9000 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Just one guy's opinion that your new sig crosses the (necessarily vague) line drawn at WP:Signatures#Appearance and color. It's really intense and distracting to the eye. You're far from the only one, but I'm feeling froggy. And, if I'm the only one with this reaction, I may rightfully be ignored, insulted, or burned at the stake. Cheers,―Mandruss ☎ 05:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Respectfully, I acknowledge your opinion, but disagree with it. One of the things mentioned is WP:COLOR, and the issue of high contrast being required for accessibility. I believe that my choice of colours is consistent with good accessibility design, something I'm always conscious of as a visually impaired person, unlike a great many signatures that I have seen in recent use and frequently struggle to read. I will, naturally, listen to and consider concerns, but have no intention of changing it at present. Murph9000 (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a different problem - as used above, you have two pairs of <span>...</span> tags, which is OK; but more recently, you seem to have switched to using the {{#tag:span|...}} parser function, this is not permitted - see WP:SIG#NT. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I have reverted that change immediately on seeing your message. Honestly, I don't consider that to be a parser function, since it is part of mw:Help:Magic words instead of mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions. I actually switched to it, as it seemed "cleaner" and is documented to be lower cost than HTML tags for some circumstances (although I admit that I can't be certain about this particular case, since that is more for conditional execution paths). All that said, it is not a hair that I wish to split, and my intention is not to dispute or argue the case, only explain the thoughts and intent surrounding the reverted change. My apologies for causing you concern. Murph9000 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Incidentally, if you would prefer it, I'd be happy to eliminate all cases where I have left usage of #tag syntax somewhere in a sig. It would not be a problem or particularly difficult for me to do that. Murph9000 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, it would avoid somebody else invoking WP:SIGCLEAN. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Family templates

A huge Thank you for all your help on finishing the merging of the two Modern Family Templates! :) TeamGale ^(talk) 18:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TeamGale: No problem, glad to help. :) Murph9000 (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jews for Jesus

Murph,

Thank you for your very civil and objective response. I understand what you are saying about the letters, and I probably won't argue that point, although they are personal correspondence from these people to Jews for Jesus which we have put on our website with their permission. More importantly, If you were to look at the Jews for Jesus Wikipedia page as a whole, I think you would see that it is filled with anti-Jews for Jesus statements. Yes, they are all sourced, but the site is so badly weighted against Jews for Jesus that I noticed that even commenters on the "Talk" page who have no axe to grind one way or the other think it's a sham. One person said it is the worst Wikipedia site they have ever seen. My efforts were in good faith to give an accurate depiction of who we are and what we do. I notice the guidelines say I should not use a lot of links to our own website. I can understand that. But Swordfish took down every single thing I posted, including our Statement of Faith. Even if I didn't post the Statement of Faith myself, whoever does post it on Wikipedia would have to footnote the link to our website. I have seen at least one other Wikipedia site which included the organization's statement of faith.

Once you take a look at the Jews for Jesus Wikipedia page (if you have the time and opportunity), please let me know if you think this merits dispute resolution. Thank you!Messianicmatt (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Messianicmatt: Well, basically, you are already involved in the first steps of the official dispute resolution process, as it starts off with basically informal recommendations, to try to address concerns and reach consensus without needing to invoke formal processes. Please read about the process, to understand how you should proceed. I've looked at the article, and I'm certainly not convinced that it's particularly good or balanced in its present form. The topic is clearly a very polarising one, with strong to extreme views present on many sides of the debate.

I suggest that you take a slow approach to it, and address just a small number of issues (or even a just single major issue) at any one time. I.e. pick what you feel is the most important problem, and try to deal with that first. As there has been a major revert of changes, you should avoid editing the article itself, but propose changes on the article's talk page, with the changes only going to the article once there is reasonable consensus to make the change. Try to avoid any giant "walls of text" in the discussion, as they can be very off-putting to others; keep the discussion slow, steady, calm, and most importantly always pushing towards neutrality.

You should probably take a look at the following WikiProjects, and possibly request assistance on their talk pages. Keep it brief and simple, something like "I'm wondering if anyone would be interested and able to help address the NPOV issues with this article?", don't overwhelm them before they have even looked at the page itself. Make sure you link the article, so it's easy for them to find it.

I don't have any involvement with any of the above, so I have no idea how active any of them are, or what their members are like. One way or another, you basically need to recruit the assistance of experienced editors who are good with dealing with controversial religious issues (no, that's not my area of expertise).

Good luck!

Murph9000 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Murph9000. You are the only person of the many Wikipedia editors I "talked" with who seems to see any merit whatsoever in my opinion that the site is unbalanced against Jews for Jesus. I understand now some of the mistakes I made in trying to edit the article, but the rest of these folks pretty much bit my head off. I will proceed as you suggest. Thanks again. Messianicmatt (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murph9000. I just wrote this on Mr. Swordfish's talkpage. As you can see, I already goofed up by not reading your message more closely, where you advised me to make no further edits until talking things over with the editors. But I explained that as best I could to Mr. Swordfish, noting that my edits were minor and sourced from outside Jews for Jesus. Here is what I wrote to him: "Mr. Swordfish. Murph9000 got back to me with some very helpful suggestions on how to approach this. I realize now I unintentionally just violated one of his suggestions, which was not to make any more edits until I "talked" it out with some of you editors. But if you look at the changes I made today, you will see they are all sourced from a non-Jews for Jesus website (an article in the Atlantic Monthly) and that they are relatively minor additions to the existing article. I changed the first line of the article because it spoke of "conversion" of Jewish people, which is a very loaded and controversial term, in my opinion. "Conversion," as you may know, conjures images of the Spanish Inquisition, with the alternative to "conversion" being executiion! So I used the Atlantic Monthly article as a source to describe the mission of the Jews for Jesus organization. Please let me know if these edits I made seem "kosher." If they do, then I hope I am on the right track to improving this article. Thank you! Messianicmatt (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Messianicmatt: Well, Mr swordfish clearly disputes that change to the lead. Unfortunately, he has not given a specific reason at present (I could guess at some possible reasons, but I'm not going to do that on a controversial or disputed issue, and that is the major problem with what was essentially a blank edit summary). I have to say that I disagree with your position on the word "conversion". I have linked it to our article on religious conversion, so that there can be no doubt about the modern meaning and implications of the word. To me, conversion may have some horrific implications in history, but it is long before the current time, and I feel that an average reasonable person will see "conversion" as quite neutral in the modern context, without any confusion due to historical usage. We routinely hear of people converting from one religion to another, without it raising the historical atrocities committed in the name of some religions (and typically completely against the true values of the religion). It seems to be a perfectly reasonable neutral statement of a simple fact, that the organisation seeks to convert people from Judaism to Christianity (and presumably in a peaceful and generally modern Christian manner, which would directly imply a generally non-violent approach). To me, the lead paragraph is really the least of the problems with possible neutrality and balance in the article. The only real problem I see with the lead is that it is possibly too short to properly introduce and summarise the subject (MOS:LEAD). I reserve judgement on whether the mission statement should be included in the lead, included in the article elsewhere, or excluded, until I properly understand the nature of the dispute around that specific content (I don't clearly know if or why he objects to it at this time).

My biggest concern around the neutrality of it is whether there is WP:UNDUE weight given to the negative side of the article. On that point, I simply don't know, it just seems that there's rather a large amount of the article devoted to it, compared to the amount of other content, so I believe that there may be some need to consider the weight and if it should be carefully reduced. As long as each part of the negative side is factually accurate and supported by reliable sources, it can't just be removed, but it might be possible to reduce some of the detail and more concisely summarise some of it. That's not something to be determined here, on my talk page. It's something to be determined on the article's talk page, so that it is done transparently, for all to see.

So, again, please raise specific concerns and propose specific changes on the article's talk page, initially dealing with just a few issues (probably what you feel are the most significant problems). Please also raise your concerns at one of the WikiProjects, as I previously suggested, in an effort to find some currently uninvolved editors who have good experience of dealing with controversial religious issues (and non-controversial religious issues too), as their experience could be very useful.

Murph9000 (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, Murph9000. I think the big problem with the opening statement is that it is not sourced! I mean, that's the thing I was so heavily criticized for in my initial edits. And there is no source for that opening statement about Jews for Jesus, whereas I was able to provide a third-party source for my suggested change. As to the term conversion, I will not argue my point with you, but suffice it to say that as a Jewish person myself, there is a visceral reaction to the term "conversion" because of the past atrocities. That's why Jews for Jesus prefers not to use that term, yet is still very clear on the fact that they want to present the claims of Jesus to Jewish people for their consideration. Anyway, I really appreciate your taking the time to help me with this, and I will proceed as you have suggested. Thanks again!Messianicmatt (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Hall article

Hi, you've got the wrong person. I just moved it to get the capitalisation right in case it was keepable. The article creator is Alaiafonk. But they've got a message from me telling them to put sources or it will go and haven't done anything yet anyway. Blythwood (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blythwood: Ahhh, ok, thanks for letting me know, and apologies for disturbing you. Twinkle's automation failed me on this occasion. Also, thanks for passing the notification on to the correct person. Murph9000 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blythwood: Actually, it's more complicated than that. Alaiafonk (talk · contribs) has pasted the article back in over the redirect you created at Damian hall in the move, so now there's a duplicate article as well. Murph9000 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ffs. They really aren't getting it, are they? Had a look for sources and there are none, so speedy sounds great. Blythwood (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And again! I promise you I'm not the person who wrote that awful article, OK? Blythwood (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blythwood: Yeah, sorry!!! I'm just trying to untangle the pages, and forgot it would spam you. I realised my mistake around 0.25s after my finger came up off the mouse button… I was just about to self-revert, when you did it. Sincere apologies! Murph9000 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Just delete all those silly 'I'm a Wiki-Ninja' templates on your user page and we're square, OK? :) Blythwood (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blythwood: {{#ifeq:{{VISITOR}}|Blythwood|{{hide user boxes}}}} :) Murph9000 (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impossibly vague deletion question

Who was that administrator who deleted my article?-MML Master (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea, and I do not know which article you are talking about. Given that you made a very recent personal attack against me, I do not particularly care either! Please do not bother me with nonsense.

Whatever article it was, it obviously fell short of the required standard for content on Wikipedia, and/or was found significantly deficient under one of the many policies and guidelines. Also, you do not WP:OWN anything on Wikipedia. I am not inclined to offer any assistance with impossibly vague questions. Murph9000 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Honest Body Project

Hi I wanted to thank you for helping to clean up The Honest Body Project page I started. I am new and certainly do not want to break any rules. I made a minor edit and added a category and I hope that helps. Is there anything else I can do regarding the COI? NatalieRMcCain (talk) 05:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Natalie. I'm just trying to figure out how best to proceed right now. I know enough to recognise a COI, but am not necessarily the best person to fully address this for you. I'll get back to you ASAP with something. I have left some general info on your talk page, to help you learn about Wikipedia. Murph9000 (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate your help! NatalieRMcCain (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Steam app

Template:Steam app has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Soetermans. T / C 15:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]