User talk:Denimadept/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Denimadept. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Proposed deletion of List of crossings of the Cuyahoga River

The article List of crossings of the Cuyahoga River has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Less than half of these articles actually exist, and therefore the list is a waste of time unless the articles can be created

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 73.149.212.175 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Three-way bridge

Your premature butchering of three-way bridge was completely unnecessary. You removed valuable information over a silly semantical error in the naming of the article. Even before the talk page discussion had started rolling, you had deleted the information. What a benefit to the readers of that article your edit was! How awful that one of the few four-way bridges in the world had found it's way into that article. I rarely criticize other editors, but your efforts on that article seemed quite petty. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Massachusetts". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 July 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Massachusetts, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

List of crossings of the Merrimack River

You need to explain why you de-PRODed the article. 24.63.117.181 (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@24.63.117.181: I'm afraid there was no place to do that. No mention of a discussion page was in the PROD, so I just deleted it, since it was irrelevant. All it complained about was redlinks, so after I got rid of those, there was no further purpose to it. There are too many entries in the list article to be merged into the river article, and the list article is very normal. Many other rivers have the same. - Denimadept (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

One more thing:

If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it.

I improved it. I am not required to explain why I object to the deletion, especially not to an anonymous account. You may not re-insert the PROD. - Denimadept (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. 24.63.117.181 (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Woah there!

Yes, he's correct - he's allowed to remove warnings and content from his own talk space - with exceptions. Don't combat him and keep restoring it :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop

Stop violating WP:BLANKING and stop falsely accusing me of vandalism or you will be reported. 24.63.117.181 (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.117.181 (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Your recent editing history at User talk:24.63.117.181 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Users are allowed to blank their user page Darkness Shines (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)