I did give a reason why I redirected one article to the other. Both are about the same street and have almost the exact same information. Only difference is one has a lot of unsourced information that should not be there. As such, I will return it to the redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- But Fort Hamilton Parkway (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page, not an article. Therefore, there are now zero articles about the road. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
"Unexplained removal" in List of Playboy Playmates of 1995
 The removal is explained, so how about at least a null edit with an edit summary that indicates some adherence to BLP, perhaps with a comment where you join the talk page discussion? Given BLP, a self-revert might be best instead? --Ronz (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with you?
You've been whacked with a wet trout.Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.
Two reverts of improper blanking in one day is hardly an edit warring violation. If you can't tell the difference between an SPA who's been vandalizing a small set of articles for two weeks, using multiple accounts, and editors trying to clean up after them, you shouldn't post to the noticeboards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: shows a dispute in progress. For that reason, it was wrong of me to come in and perform the first revert I performed. I was made aware of the dispute by Ronz, and I corrected myself appropriately. The process is, Bold, revert, discuss. It isn't revert and comment, unrevert and comment, rerevert and comment, unrevert and comment, rerevert and comment, unrevert and comment, rerevert and comment. Once it becomes apparent that there is a dispute, you should follow proper dispute resolution processes. By the time you've made your second revert, you're on thin ice. 3RR is not a right, it is a bright line; in other words, 2 reverts is usually wrong, 3 reverts probably is, but 4 is inexcusable almost regardless of your reasons. You're basically appealing to WP:NOT3RR which says that "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language" isn't vandalism; but the other editors are stating that they are "removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." The material is clearly contentious at this point. It may be proved to be valuable and worth being kept. But in the meantime, you ought to have been pursuing the matter through the proper channels. Reverting partial blanking of a page isn't that. J♯m (talk | contribs) 04:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- Spare me your poorly informed and superficial blather. Reciting tired wikibromides while washing your hands of responsibility while impeding editors who are attempting to deal with a bad faith user hiding behind multiple accounts just makes you a speed bump on the information wikihighway. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Your remarks at User talk:Chichilambda
I have to tell you I don't think your helping this user actually helped anything at all.
- Their username is a blatant violation of WP:ORGNAME, which you failed to advise them of at all. They are now blocked from using that name.
- Userfying a page without being asked is generally a waste of time. When someone comes onto Wikipedia to promote an organization they are involved with, they want it in article space where people will see it. Doing a copy-and-paste userfication breaks proper attribution and is just creating more junk pages that will not be attended to. I have therefore deleted that page.
- You advised them to look into the "new article incubator" without providing a link. This is possibly because there is no such thing, although we did used to have the WP:INCUBATOR, it was replaced by the Draft namespace years ago.
- Thank you, @Zaphod.
- I saw the username, and so I realized that they were probably a SPA, but I guess I missed the part where that's actually a policy violation.
- Re: userfying without being asked: Good to know.
- I intentionally didn't provide the link to the incubator. Apparently that was a mistake on my part, because had I looked for it, I would have found that it is deprecated. I did, however, give them a link to WP:Your first article.
- I had thought of attempting to make my post to Chichilambda into a template, because it might seem a little less template-y. Looking at it now, however, I realize that the first comment on their page was in fact the template designed for new users who create less-than-ideal first pages.
- Thanks for your advice. Next time I run into this situation, I will deal with it in a much different manner. J♯m (talk | contribs) 19:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit war continues.
Hi.  I have the ip address in this discussion. My computer changes ip address every time it is turned on and off. As recommended I created a user account. . What do you think about this subject ? I waited for the discussion. Despite this, he still insists on this. I came to you, because you were interested in this topic. what do you suggest i do ? Thanks ArslanYabgu (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Descriptive notation listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Descriptive notation. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Descriptive notation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)