User talk:Lowellian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lowellian's User Talk Page: Please leave new comments at the bottom of this page.

  • If you want me to respond quickly on some issue, it is best to post your responses on my Talk page, as I usually do not use my watchlist.
Lowellian
Admin mop.PNG This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)
Noia 64 apps karm.png This user has been an admin for
12 years and 9 months.

Please do...

  • ...notify me if an article I have edited is listed for deletion.

Please do not...

  • ...suggest archiving my Talk page.
  • ...ask me about my personal life, which I keep separate from Wikipedia.

Thanks! —Lowellian

Contents

Ho Yinsen[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:Ho Yinsen.Lowellian

User:Shell Kinney[edit]

What happened in this edit [1] of yours? Your edit summary was "Reverted 1 edit by 203.177.92.101 identified as vandalism to last revision by Phatom87. (TW)", but you did not revert to the last revision by Phatom87 [2]; instead, you ended up deleting much of the page. I don't use Twinkle so I don't know if it's a problem with that software, but if it's a problem with Twinkle, you should report the bug to the tool coder. If it's not a problem with Twinkle, try to be more careful (no big deal, though, everybody makes mistakes once in a while when editing quickly). —Lowellian (reply) 05:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow, that's definitely a Twinkle issue - I must have missed it because I had the ip page pop up for a warning. Thanks for catching that and letting me know! Shell babelfish 05:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Seven Seas 2 (Eight Seas?)[edit]

Note today's update to Talk:Seven_Seas#True_Seven_Seas. - Shaheenjim (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Alcohol-and-cigarette-based human combustion[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 August 25#Alcohol-and-cigarette-based human combustion.Lowellian

Maglev[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 August 26#Maglev.Lowellian

Shock[edit]

Hi there,

I have some reservations about your recent edits to Shock related articles. From a medical standpoint (certainly in my experience), the acute stress reaction, which you've now renamed 'Shock (psychological)' isn't shock, and a lot of people spend a lot of time trying to get this across. Whilst I appreciate your argument about common names, that doesn't apply when a term isn't accurate or when professional opinion is against it. Do you have any references (as per WP:CITE and WP:V) to support this move? If not, I think we'll have to move it back, although I have no problem in strengthening the explanation of the link at the top of the page.

Regards, OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 18:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I don't object to leave shock (psychological) at acute stress reaction. —Lowellian (reply) 21:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I was trying to follow the chain of moves in the Shock articles. I think you moved shock (medical) to shock (physiological) and then on to Shock (circulatory); I think shock (medical) was then changed to point to shock, which is a dab page. WP:DPL tries to minimise the links to dab pages by relinking to the desired destination; would it be appropriate, broadly at least, to take the old links into shock (medical) and revise them to shock (circulatory)? Regards, --AndrewHowse (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Longwave[edit]

Please see my reply to your comments at Talk:Longwave#Longwave_or_long_wave (and reply there, so other page editors can see it). TIA. --Harumphy (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Needleguns[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 September 11#Disadvantages of needleguns.Lowellian

Proposed deletion of Infinity Gems[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Infinity Gems, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --EEMIV (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Japanese honorific -kakka[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2008 September 21#Japanese honorific -kakka.Lowellian

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7[edit]

Hi there!  :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Flatbed scanners[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 September 29#Flatbed scanner covers.Lowellian

Electrical power consumption[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 September 30#Power consumption vs. hour of day.Lowellian

Media mail[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 October 7#Media mail.Lowellian

RfD nomination of Wikimoney[edit]

I have nominated Wikimoney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 01:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nine Seas[edit]

The article on Seven Seas used to say that they included the Arabian Sea, but not the Indian Ocean. Then you added the Indian Ocean to the list. Then I edited it to clarify that it includes the Indian Ocean OR the Arabian Sea (which is part of the Indian Ocean), but not both. Recently someone edited it again to say that it always includes the Arabian Sea (which is part of the Indian Ocean), but not all of the Indian Ocean. Are you ok with that? - Shaheenjim (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Heating[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 November 29#Cost of an additional degree of heating.Lowellian

Third derivative[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2008 November 30#Third derivative.Lowellian

SKYROOF redir[edit]

It appears you posted a permanent redirect from SKYROOF to SUNROOF on 7/4/08. Such a redirect promulgates TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT by individuals who will be led to believe that the term SKYROOF and SUNROOF are interchangable. I sent you a PRIVATE EMAIL email with additional details to review and discuss. Thank You.SunroofGuy —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

Hi Lowellian! I've also been sent a similar message (I assume), and as I'm online now I'll get back to the user about this, and explain what has happened and why. :-) Regards Stwalkerstertalk ] 16:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Skyroof[edit]

I have nominated Skyroof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 18:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Skyroof Re-deletion[edit]

I've gone ahead and re-deleted the skyroof redirect as a courtesy deletion. Based upon discussions with SunroofGuy, I believe this is the best solution. As the term is non-notable, this doesn't seem to be worth arguing about and there is some basis behind his complaint. I left the page fully protected against recreation. Since your main concern appeared to be the recreation, this seemed an adequate compromise. Let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Greek harvest[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 January 19#Greek harvest.Lowellian

Drizzt Do'Urden[edit]

Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Drizzt Do'Urden, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) BOZ (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Award from: Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame[edit]

Congratulations, you have been inducted into the Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame

See the new little Life Preserver at the top of your page?

Coding:

Feel free to add more articles saved awards to your page, and to award other people this award too, for saving articles from deletion on Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Leave a message[edit]

your talk page is rather long, may I suggest the following at the top of both your talk and userpage?:


or:

Best wishes. Ikip (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Artificial nails[edit]

I didn't redirect to Manicure. I redirected to the section of the Manicure page which discusses artificial nails. What a concept. AnyPerson (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is, however, utterly unsourced. AnyPerson (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man[edit]

Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Spider-Man, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) There are a number of concerns to be addressed and some work to be done, so pitch in if you are able, make any suggestions that you think might be helpful, or at least just be there for moral support. :) BOZ (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Template Undated[edit]

Hi Lowellian, I believe you're the creator of this template. Can the template show different outputs depending on whether it is a date or a time? You can answer on Template talk:Undated#Incorrect grammar. Jay (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

File:MagicCardsForDemonstratingExpansionSymbol.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:MagicCardsForDemonstratingExpansionSymbol.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jay32183 (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Account Deletion[edit]

Hi, I would like to know how to go about deleting my account. I will no longer be participating in this site and wish to have all info associated with my Username deleted. I have done some searching but cannot seem to find any info on how to deleted a Wikipedia account?! Thanks. HeMan5 (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, According to Wiki policy, my Talk page can be deleted, so how do I go about getting it deleted?! I have had enough of this stupid site and no longer wish to participate. I want my talk page deleted and account closed to ensure that no one else can login under my username. HeMan5 (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Lowellian, you may want to know about Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:HeMan5 on an extreme WP:POINT vandalism spree before answering. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Drow[edit]

Hey there. :) In my quest to get more Wikipedia articles up to "Good Article" status, I've gotten ambitious and decided to take on the Drow article. Yeah, call me crazy, but I'm going to do it. :) I've put a bunch of work into the AD&D 1st edition section, using the sources I had on hand (don't have Q1 so did what I could), though I probably went overboard and will need to trim back a bit. I'm going to start on the 2nd edition section soon, but I would appreciate any help you or anyone you know can give towards building up the publication history properly, finding sources, checking for inaccuracies and completeness, etc. I'd especially need help in bulking up the novels section, as I don't have any of these. Any help you can give, even as a cheering section, would be appreciated. :)

We can get this done... if you haven't seen what we've done already, previous successes include Dragonlance, Drizzt Do'Urden, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Forgotten Realms, Gary Gygax, Planescape: Torment, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, and Wizards of the Coast. :) BOZ (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Larry Scott (sports administrator)[edit]

Updated DYK query On April 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Larry Scott (sports administrator), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Dravecky (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See T:DYK diff.Lowellian

Ticket to Ride[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:Ticket to Ride/Talk:Ticket to Ride (disambiguation).Lowellian

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to create malicious redirects, you will be blocked from editing. No I don't think this warning is too severe. Bearing in mind that TWO editors have already complained I think it would have been preferable to at least get a concensus before reverting. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. An accusation of malicious intent and a threat of blocking is way over the line for a single revert. Moreover, I explained my actions and started a discussion on Talk:Ticket to Ride/Talk:Ticket to Ride (disambiguation) before I made the revert. —Lowellian (reply) 22:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

... but you did the revert over the known objections of two editors and with no comments from other editors, no attempt to seek consensus. You acted hastily. I've asked for an administrator to undo what you have done. I hope you will participate in a discussion about this before you revert it again. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted once because you reverted me without giving any evidence of the Beatles song being the primary topic, whereas I did have evidence that it was not. 2-to-1 is far too small a sample size for you to claim any sort of consensus. I am not going to move again without more discussion. And again, threatening blocking for a single revert was way excessive and not supported by Wikipedia policy. —Lowellian (reply) 04:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't threaten anything. I asked you politely to seek consensus, and you ignored it. — John Cardinal (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said you (User:John Cardinal) threatened anything. However, look above: another user, User:Richhoncho, threatened to block me. —Lowellian (reply) 15:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I threatened. I admit it. I was mightly p*ssed off with your "I am right, you are wrong" attitude. Your ignoring, not mine, not John Cardinal's edits, but another admin who obviously concurred with the two of us. WP is supposed to be built on concensus, editors working together etc etc etc. Obviously not in the case with anonymous users and User:Lowellian. As an admin you should be ashamed of yourself. End of story. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to be ashamed about. I made a single revert that I accompanied with an explanation on the article talk page. A single revert with an explanation that presents new evidence is a natural and accepted part of Wikipedia editing in general. Among Wikipedia's core principles is, if an editor sees something that the editor thinks should be fixed, the editor should make the change, and explain the change if other users might object. You could have just made a counterargument on the article's discussion page and then reverted the change without coming to my user talk page to threaten to block me. The other admin did not comment on the matter and was just responding to a request from you. Blocking is for cases of edit warring or repeated reversion (see WP:3RR). A single revert, with an explanation that presents new evidence, does not an edit war make. The accusation of maliciousness and the threat to block me was premature and uncivil and assumed bad faith. —Lowellian (reply) 17:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Hollywood marriage[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Hollywood marriage, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood marriage. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Martin451 (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fungi-related food questions[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 July 4#Fungi-related food questions.Lowellian

ProsperAr - Check article[edit]

Dear Mr Lowellian Please check your wikipedia e-mail account regarding Mrs. María Beatriz Nofal´s article. Best Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProsperAr (talkcontribs) 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Orange Bowl[edit]

You forgot to move a bunch of the talk pages when you moved Orange Bowl to Orange Bowl (disambiguation) and then moved Orange Bowl (game) to Orange Bowl, leaving Talk:Orange Bowl (game). For whatever reason Talk:Orange Bowl is a redirect to Talk:Orange Bowl (disambiguation).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all been fixed now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent changes![edit]

Thanks for your recent edits!! - You helped the world today in some way... maybe a little bit, but wrong is doing nothing at all. 189.217.171.135 (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Magibon[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Magibon. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magibon (4th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've re-nominated her for deletion. :Pisomojado (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Football[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2009 December 6#New York and college football and WT:CFB#New York and college football.Lowellian

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 December 6#Why aren't rugby players overwhelmed with injuries?.Lowellian

Burns and clothing[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 December 6#Burns and clothing vs. bare skin.Lowellian

Electrical sockets and knives[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 December 6#Knives and electrical sockets.Lowellian

Immunity[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 December 24#Returning isolated human and immunity.Lowellian

Marine life and decompression sickness[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 December 25#Marine life and decompression sickness.Lowellian

Heating and water[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 January 6#Sound of sloshing water in home heating system.Lowellian

Television ratings[edit]

You seem to know how to find ratings. Do you know how I can find ratings for the five episodes of Million Dollar Challenge (poker)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Medici bank[edit]

You know, there was really no need to move it. It was lower-cased because the topic discussed was not any particular legal corporation - none of the Medici branches was named just 'the Medici Bank' so far as I know - but rather a motly collection of shifting entities over the decades/centuries. So one can speak of the Medici bank but not the Medici Bank, if you follow me. eg. see the hits in Google books http://books.google.com/books?q=medici+bank&btnG=Search+Books . --Gwern (contribs) 20:24 13 January 2010 (GMT)

While the Medici Bank may not have been a legally incorporated entity in the modern sense, many modern historians refer to it as a proper noun entity; indeed, many of the sources in the Google Books link you gave do capitalize "Medici Bank" (even in plain prose, outside book titles). Moreover, the majority of the text of the article itself capitalizes "Medici Bank"; the page title of the article should be consistent with the text within the article. —Lowellian (reply) 20:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Lowellian. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Bots.
Message added 03:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for being patient with me. I hope this is a good compromise : ). Tim1357 (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

YesY I replied again. Tim1357 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Kristian Ayre[edit]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Victoria's Secret Fashion Show/GA1[edit]

Since you have contributed greatly to the article, I am letting you know that I have received WP:GAC feedback at Talk:Victoria's Secret Fashion Show/GA1. Feel free to get involved in the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Stack[edit]

I replied here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for helping this article attain and retain its WP:GA status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

plurality of Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions[edit]

Regarding the singular vs. plural point you made on Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, you'll notice in Elliot's Debates that the plural is used for Virginia's Resolutions. Each paragraph is a "resolution"—this is especially clear in the subtitle of the Kentucky Resolutions. Furthermore, in the first sentence of an address that accompanied the Virginia resolutions, the majority specifically refers to "resolutions" (see s:Virginia Resolutions of 1798/Address), as do the states who respond (Delaware, Rhode Island, etc.). There's also a book called "Kentucky Resolutions of 1798", and an 1899 scholarly article refers to the "Virginia Resolutions" at the bottom of page 51. If you don't mind, I'd like to make the WP article consistent with this standard. --Spangineerws (háblame) 23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you remember if your source also referred to a Kentucky Resolution of 1798 and a Kentucky Resolution of 1799, or was it just Virginia's that was singular? In any case, it seems unlikely to me that both Elliot and Anderson (1899) would have purposefully changed all the contemporary texts to adapt to this standard. Elliot quotes a number of state responses (as I mentioned), as well as the report of the majority, and Madison's report, and all of them refer to the Virginia Resolutions. And Anderson, for example, quotes the primary sources of the state responses in s:Contemporary_Opinion_of_the_Virginia_and_Kentucky_Resolutions/Appendix, and in all cases the wording is the "resolutions" of Virginia (reply of Maryland, reply of Penn., and reply of the minority of Vermont).
I've been studying this topic for a number of months now, but don't remember having come across this anywhere else besides the WP article. If you remember anything about your sources, please let me know; I've confined my research primarily to public domain works (for Wikisource) and perhaps the distinction is addressed in more recent works? I'm not sure what to make of it. --Spangineerws (háblame) 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Terese Nielsen[edit]

Hello,

I am letting you know that an article you have been involved in editing, Terese Nielsen, has been nominated for deletion as part of a series of AFDs based on the deletion nomination of List of Magic: The Gathering artists. If there is anything you can do to improve the article further, your efforts would be appreciated. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships[edit]

A user has criticised you at Talk:Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships#Requested move. A bot has copied his first post to Wikipedia:Requested moves/current#June 25, 2010 which is transcluded at Wikipedia:Requested moves. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Cape[edit]

Hi, now that The Cape is a disambig page, could you help fix the links that need re-pointing per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, The Cape

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JaGa (talkcontribs) 06:30, 18 September 2010

Audio theatre an article to audio dramas[edit]

Please if you have time and you know anything to it (I have seen that you have made edits in the article area which owns relations on it --- You have made the article Batman Knightfall) , please look on the article Audio theatre, somebody placed a erase discussion on it. after we have had a merge discussion. It would be interesting what you would say to the merge and the delete discussion. )-: --Soenke Rahn (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Unintended consequences[edit]

Hi Lowellian. Back in May, you reverted a change in the title of this article. However, your revert was against the consensus on the talk page. Would you mind undoing your revert, without the caps in the new title ("Law of unintended consequences"), since administrator action is now required to do this. Otherwise, please discuss the matter on the talk page. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Lowellian. You have new messages at Talk:Unintended consequences.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:YouTube video producers[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:YouTube video producers, which you created back in 2007, has been nominated by another editor for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thom Merrilin[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Thom Merrilin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claim to notability of fictional character

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sadads (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Smallville season 10 airdates[edit]

If you disagree so passionately, then please come to the talk page and discuss it. I initially put up a template warning because I didn't realize that you were a seasoned editor (the "This user is an Administrator alerted me to it when I was saving the message). As a season editor, and an administrator, I would expect that you would be aware of when WP:BRD should be put into place. I understand why you keep reverting, but since there is clearly a disagreement I would ask that you simply bring it up on the talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My original additions, which I thought were common sense corrections to an article that omitted fairly obvious information, were reverted without discussion on the talk page and with only comments in the edit summaries, so I likewise responded via edit summaries, detailed ones explaining my reasoning therein. Furthermore, I attempted to compromise by searching for and adding citations. I do not care enough about this issue (this was never a big deal to me; this started as a casual addition while I was browsing through Wikipedia to an article and topic which I do not regularly edit) to continue pursuing it; I concede, and will agree to let the article stay in its incomplete state, though I disagree with it. In any case, the question will be moot in a few weeks, as the episodes air. —Lowellian (reply) 00:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Weiner sexting scandal[edit]

Hi Lowellian,

Thanks for your attention on the Anthony Weiner item. However, I strongly disagree with your position--PROD status does not impact whether something is speediable or not. I restored the history and temporarily protected the redirect per a discussion on my talk page, and I wish you had contacted me before undoing my admin actions. --jonny-mt 00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The PROD template clearly states that "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." The implication of the template not being replaceable is also that, if the template is removed, the article is not readily deletable without first seeking consensus. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions, and the deletion of that article was unmistakably controversial, with statements of both support for deletion and opposition to deletion from multiple users. The PROD was disputed and the template removed by another user (User:Wikipedical), so at that point, with no clear consensus to delete, further action to delete the article should have been through AFD. Redirecting the article was an effective unilateral deletion without due process and enforcing that effective no-process deletion by protecting the redirect was an abuse of admin powers, one that you did not reverse even after protest from yet another user (User:Joseph A. Spadaro). The admin action was wrong, and as such, I reversed it and left notes on both Talk:Anthony Weiner and Talk:Anthony Weiner photo scandal. —Lowellian (reply) 01:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi please follow WP:brd and move to discussion, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board/ZHCOTM[edit]

Hi, I have reactivated this after some discussion on collaborative editing on wikipedia. My idea is to give it a few months and see if it works out. If not, so be it, but might generate more discussion. I note you were interested many moons ago..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Gya for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gya is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gya until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello Lowellian! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

regarding your moving The Firm[edit]

About your moving of The Firm from its year disambiguation, your own moves demonstrated exactly what disambiguating by year is to avoid. Fights over "U.S. TV series" or "Canadian TV series". Set in the US and based on the work of an American novelist. Actually made in Canada with many Canadian cast members and made by Canadian companies (E1, Shaw) with token involvement from the US companies (Paramount) who own the rights to the original work. Commissioned by American company (Sony) for their channel in ROW. Massive American media with 'billions of sources' that inherently call nigh everything American. Microscopic Canadian media that often label domestic productions as originals of the US broadcaster who bought the rights simply because that is what everything they read said it is. Queer As Folk, Being Human, Skins, and a couple of others have had big issue with this. I personally have been told to concede to such things as Montreal not being in Canada and that volume of sources trumps accuracy of source. Each one of those shows is made in Canada for Canadian television and might have some involvement from a US production company or not and might have a US cast member or not but they are all set in the US. The show Falcon Beach even had alternate takes edited in any time a location was mentioned so that American viewers on ABC Family were sheltered from the show's Canadian origin in obscure Winnipeg. Due to that some insisted the show is American. To avoid fights with too many people i have come to disambiguate such shows by year because that is less egregious than having a Canadian show labelled as American simply because it was on a US channel for 6 weeks in its first season. And in the case of The Firm the American broadcaster was the last one to come to the party and they got a cheap price for it because it is generally really embarrassing to set a show in the US and end up without a US broadcaster for it. That is why the mini-series The Kennedys ended up on reelzchannel and the Canadian première in March of last year was cancelled in favour of the US premiere in April. To get a show sold to a US broadcaster Shaw will be very flexible. Once a US broadcaster has been secured Shaw doesn't bind themselves to whatever the US broadcaster does, unlike some other Canadian broadcasters. That ep of Combat Hospital that was unaired in the US but which was shown in Canada. Keeping The Firm on Thursdays on Global and repeating on Fridays and Saturdays on Showcase when NBC moves it to Saturdays. Showing NCIS a day ahead of CBS due to time slot conflict with glee Tuesdays at 8pm. I don't know how much you follow Canadian television but going with a national disambiguation opens a pretty hostile 'can of worms' for a show like The Firm. delirious & lost~hugs~ 14:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, I am following the Wikipedia naming convention at WP:TV-NAME, which says to disambiguate first by country, and the infobox in the article states that the country of origin is Canada. That is all; I have no particular personal opinion on the issue. If you have an issue with the naming convention, you should raise the issue on the talk pages for WP:TV and WP:TV-NAME. —Lowellian (reply) 00:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
As you seem to not notice, disambiguating multi-national television productions by country of origin is fundamentally flawed. Congratulations for starting the fight all of us were quite happy to not have. delirious & lost~hugs~ 17:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you please stop spamming my talk page with massive quotes. If the conversation started HERE then HERE is where i look for YOUR RESPONSE. delirious & lost~hugs~ 10:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Commas[edit]

I'm not sure why you moved Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. The usual practice with articles that started with British English variations is to leave them in that form. In Britain, the so-called Oxford comma or serial comma is not commonly used. I don't really care one way or another, but I thought you might have seen it as a mistake rather than a legitimate alternative.   Will Beback  talk  04:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

hey

--Kilhert40 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Did you want to ask me something? —Lowellian (reply) 21:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Firm[edit]

I notice you moved The Firm (2012 TV series) to The Firm (U.S. TV series) then to The Firm (Canadian TV series). Why did you do that? I don't want to have the article take a side; I'd rather have it 2012. 68.44.179.54 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, I am following the Wikipedia naming convention at WP:TV-NAME, which says to disambiguate first by country, and the infobox in the article states that the country of origin is Canada. —Lowellian (reply) 00:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, it air in more than one country, so why don't you change it back to 2012 TV series? 68.44.179.54 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Most TV shows air in more than one country, and the naming convention says to disambiguate first by country of origin. —Lowellian (reply) 02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
It began in the U.S. and Canada on the same day, so why don't you just do it by year? 68.44.179.54 (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Because the naming convention says to do it by country. —Lowellian (reply) 04:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I told you the country of origin was both the U.S. and Canada at the same time! On WP:TV-NAME, first it says go by country. The series originated in both the U.S. and Canada at the same time, so then we go by year. If the series gets canceled in the U.S. but renewed in Canada, then you can make separate articles (same vice-versa), but that didn't happen yet. So, for now, it should be by year. 68.44.179.54 (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The country of origin is not both U.S. and Canada. The country of origin is the country that produced the show: in this case, Canada. Many television series start airing in multiple countries on the same date (this happens frequently with series from the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. because of the shared English language); that does not change that they have a specific country of origin. —Lowellian (reply) 17:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Television series disambiguation[edit]

Hello. I have been swayed by User:Deliriousandlost's arguments over on Talk:The Firm (2012 TV series) / Talk:The Firm (Canadian TV series) that there are fundamental problems with the disambiguation naming convention at WP:TV-NAME. Therefore, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), I have proposed a change to the naming convention which would indeed make disambiguation policy officially support The Firm being located at the "The Firm (2012 TV series)" instead of at "The Firm (Canadian TV series)". Your input would be appreciated there. —Lowellian (reply) 22:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if this will solve our problems. I will look at it and get back to you. (just some quick thoughts but nothing concrete): In your proposed update, country of production would keep the title as Canadian TV series, as the show is produced in Canada. I agree with the fact that there is an issue of country specific disambig due to the international availability of TV shows, but we must also consider that country of production is not necessarily country of origin. What I mean is that there are many "U.S." original run TV shows produced in Canada, some are shown simultaneously (broadcast networks), some are shown a season or so behind (Usually cable network). So while I agree that there is some wiggle room and possible changes that might need to be made, I am unsure if this is the right change.--UnQuébécois (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of MediaWiki version history for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MediaWiki version history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaWiki version history until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Monkey (novel) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Monkey (novel) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey (novel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Rescuing monkey from danger[edit]

FYI[3]. I'll do a little more in it later to add more references. I think it's worth keeping. Homunculus (duihua) 22:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

Thanks for fixing Talk:Disappearance of Kyron Horman. I must have accidentally hit "add signature" or something while I was editing and didn't catch the mistake. Thanks again. :)

Matt (talk) 05:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) —Lowellian (reply) 08:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Carl Wolfgang Benjamin Goldschmidt[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Minimal surface of revolution[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG[edit]

I see you are the primary editor to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an MMORPG. I left a comment in the Talk page expressing how totally amused I was at that article. It's got to be one of the greatest articles in Wikipedia! Seriously, well done. I am thoroughly impressed. :D • Jesse V.(talk) 06:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed it! :) —Lowellian (reply) 08:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[edit]

Columbine High School massacre is a widely used name for the event, as established via reliable sources. Conversely, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is merely our description (and as discussed on the talk page, it probably won't even remain the article's title in the long term), not a de facto name. I strongly disagree that "The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a school shooting" reads well. —David Levy 03:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your edit (undone the same minute), but it didn't address my concerns.
There's no reason for us to state that the shooting was a shooting. As noted above, the phrase "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" is merely our article's title. It has absolutely no special significance and shouldn't be displayed in bold (thereby treating it as a formal name).
In the near future, a predominant name (quite possibly "Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre" or something similar) will be established via reliable sources. That's when it will be appropriate for us to use one. In the meantime, please restore the correct formatting. Thank you. —David Levy 04:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
"Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" is a widely used name for the event in reliable sources. Do a quick Internet search; thousands and thousands of news media sources are referring to it by that name. WP:CRYSTALBALL says we have no business predicting some sort of future name change, so the correct formatting is boldfaced. —Lowellian (reply) 04:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
You've misunderstood. I don't assert that the description "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" is uncommon among reliable sources. But at this point, that's all that it is: a description. And it's one of many. (For example, "Newtown school shooting" appears to be equally common.)
It's too early for any predominant name (comparable to "Columbine High School massacre") to have been established. Until such time, there's no valid reason for us to single out one of these descriptions in prose. "Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" happens to be our article's title, but it carries absolutely no special significance. —David Levy 04:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with your argument. That said, I don't care enough about this article to continue the dispute, so if you wish to revert, go ahead. —Lowellian (reply) 04:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. To be clear, I'm not asking you to agree with the practice, but I can assure you that I've accurately described our conventions. —David Levy 04:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm well aware of Wikipedia conventions. The point in dispute is precisely the interpretation of those conventions, and I can assure you that you haven't accurately described them, since WP:SBE certainly does not support de-boldfacing this subject. I'm not interested in continuing this dispute, so let's agree to disagree. —Lowellian (reply) 04:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

Hello, this is just a heads up that I've used your contributions as an example to demonstrate an old bug mentioned in Wikipedia's documentation about moving a page over a redirect. Hope you don't mind ... if you do, I can find somebody else to use as an example; I just chose you because your early edits show the effect of the bug quite clearly. I might update that section later if I find any more documentation of the bug, but it's way past my bedtime now! Graham87 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I was reminded of this bug due to this thread on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Graham87 16:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've removed the link to your contributions and replaced it with an edit that I found while digging through the history of Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page. The edit was designed to demonstrate the bug; the link to it was removed in June 2005. Sorry for bothering you with this. Graham87 02:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture for Can: Monster Movie - Record cover[edit]

Hi - I just visited the page of Can: Monster Movie. The LP cover it the cover of the reissue (Liberty Records)! At release time only 500 ex. of Monster Movie were pressed - the coverart is entirely different. Those original pressings are extremly rare - I own one of them. I could supply the original cover of the LP - which I consider the correct one ;-)

Best regards Ueli Frey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uelifrey (talkcontribs) 18:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


Well... happy editing... :-) it's my first try at it! Not really sucessful! I don't get rid of some letters showing up around the picture. Please check! I hope I did not mess up the page. Furthermore I was not sure how to 'declare' the copyright situation of a photo taken from an LP cover (on wikicommons). Best regards Ueli Frey Uelifrey (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Winter storm naming[edit]

I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 IRS scandal[edit]

Thank you for the administrative help and move. Everyone seems pretty happy with this title. As a note this article was not done to evade a block. The article was created before the block and after discussion and agreement. The purpose was to rename and move the article. Then the old page was locked down (over unrelated edit warring). It doesn't really matter now, but I thought you should know given your brief comment. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance regarding moves. I will follow it. Thanks again. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of M'Kraan Crystal for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article M'Kraan Crystal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M'Kraan Crystal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Tel'aran'rhiod for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tel'aran'rhiod is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tel'aran'rhiod until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Chinese school for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chinese school is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese school until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Firoozbakht’s conjecture listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Firoozbakht’s conjecture. Since you had some involvement with the Firoozbakht’s conjecture redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Compfreak7 (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

ITN for May 2014 Ürümqi attack[edit]

--SpencerT♦C 20:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MinorEdit[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:MinorEdit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Meteor sandwich yum (talkcontribs) 04:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

China (historical region) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect China (historical region). Since you had some involvement with the China (historical region) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 03:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 courtesy notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--John (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 4, Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17/Archive 5, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive848#Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 full protection.Lowellian

  • The issue of the semi-protected status of this article has been discussed again here: Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 under "Protected Status of Article". I am of the view it might be time to remove protection from this article. Perhaps your two cents on the timeline or circumstances necessary for removal would be helpful.--64.253.142.26 (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Common (film)[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus cases in the United States[edit]

Thank you for removing the conspiracy theorist post on the Ebola article. I ran an online search of the user's name. It turns out that he or someone with the same username runs or is otherwise involved in a number of conspiracy theorist websites, and claims to be suing the government for damages relating to a "mind control program." I would recommend observing his account for any other unconstructive edits or the possibility that he may try to revert your removal of his content. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 09:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Two Steps From Hell listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Two Steps From Hell. Since you had some involvement with the Two Steps From Hell redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Safiel (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

RfD says at the top "about a week". Why did you close it in a day? Si Trew (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Read the reason given in the closure: this isn't actually about the redirect, but about the article title, and as such, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is not the proper place for this discussion; it should be re-submitted to Wikipedia:Requested moves. —Lowellian (reply) 21:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A Song of Ice and Fire: A pie for you![edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg Consider it a pigeon pie! Oh, wait no, don't want you to choke haha! Great job on ASOAIF page! Sarahnals (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Guerrilla filmmaking[edit]

Hello,

I have searched in vain for the good path to get administrator’s help for the following issue and so I decided to send this request to some including you.

I have considerably expanded the article Guerrilla filmmaking and took care in referencing it as far as I could (over 90 links to trustful sources). I am an experienced editor of Wikipedia. For my surprise, the article was reverted by user CIRT to a preceding stub version mainly consisting of a very narrow list of films. Many important contents were removed. Self promotional vandalism seems to be the reason of such intervention, sustained by acute threats. I do not intend to respond with helpless and inconsequent arguments and the time I have to dedicate to Wikipedia is quite limited.

I’d be happy if you could pay some attention to this occurrence and let you decide whatever you think is reasonable.

My best,

Tertulius (User talk:Tertulius) 06,48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Kim Cloutier[edit]

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier was (somewhat strangely) closed as a delete with 5 delete and 4 keep responses and recreated through the WP:AFC process you contested a speedy deletion. Thus, I call your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier (2nd nomination).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

request to move the article heading Principle of legality to former name Legality[edit]

Hi,

Seasons greetings. Way back in 2004 you had created an article heading Legality but since most of lead content in the article was about Principle of legality it was redirected by another user to Principle of legality. Yesterday I studied and worked a little on Legality. Since word Legality has wider scope it would be wise to redirect the article from Principle of legality to its former position Legality . I have created enough lead info for the article related to legality on the talk page which can be incorporated and then present lead about Principle of legality can be a section in the article.

I will prefer you support in redirect the article from Principle of legality to its former position Legality so that history of the article can be retained properly. You may refer further details on Talk:Principle_of_legality

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Blitz Ciphers[edit]

As you deleted the page 'a while back' - would you be able to find a link to a past version for [4]? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't have anything to do with deleting the page. User:Michig deleted the page based on the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blitz ciphers. In any case, it appears from the link you gave that someone has already found a past version for you. —Lowellian (reply) 13:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Kaelin Clay[edit]

What was the reasoning behind restoring the revisions prior the AFD? Was it requested?--Yankees10 21:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The page was originally deleted for being non-notable. It was later recreated (by someone else, not me) [edit/update: I realized later, after originally writing this comment, that you are the recreator, for which I thank you] as Kaelin Clay gained notability by getting drafted. It is fairly standard practice to restore full page history for a previously deleted page that now exists. Part of the core of what Wikipedia is about is that all previous contributions on a topic by editors should be accessible (except for cases like copyright violations or doxxing, neither of which apply here). —Lowellian (reply) 13:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Imprint[edit]

I hope you will visit Talk:Imprint (trade name) and summarize the changes. Did you work on two articles? Or an article and a redirect with two substantial talk pages and page histories? What does it mean in terms of Imprint (disambiguation)?

The history shows [5] "assess for WP:WikiProject Business" as edit summary for replacement of the content by a redirect. And shows that the page (except in name?) is the same as I left it in December. I doubt that I know how to read a merged history. Did the intervening editor rename, in effect, rather than delete the content?

--P64 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

At some point, the article at "imprint (publishing)" was turned into a redirect while its content was cut-and-pasted, instead of being properly moved, to "imprint (trade name)", which is frowned upon by Wikipedia policy because it meant that "imprint (trade name)" was missing its older edit history, which was separated at "imprint (publishing)". I merged the page histories to fix the cut-and-paste move. —Lowellian (reply) 09:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Marvel PQ?[edit]

I'm curious why you changed the name of Marvel Puzzle Quest to Marvel PQ. I've never heard it referred to that way. I always see it referred to as Marvel Puzzle Quest - on the Marvel website, on the publisher's website, on iTunes, Twitter, etc. Even if you Google search "Marvel PQ", everything that comes up says "Marvel Puzzle Quest". Nowhere do I see it referred to as Marvel PQ, aside from on the cover of the game, but that just seems to be for purposes of style. I mean, the logo for Nine Inch Nails is NIN, but that doesn't mean the Wikipedia page should be named NIN. Is there something I'm missing here?--Bernie44 (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I explained why in my edit summaries: "official title, as shown by game cover". I felt that we should go with the official source, the title on the cover. However, I acknowledge the citations you have given and so have reverted my own move. —Lowellian (reply) 04:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.--Bernie44 (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Gribshunden[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to a research survey[edit]

Hello Lowellian, I am Qi Wu, a computer science MS student at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are working on a project studying the main article and sub article relationship in a purpose of better serving the Wikipedia article structure. It would be appreciated if you could take 4-5 minutes to finish the survey questions. Thanks in advance! We will not collect any of your personally information.

Thank you for your time to participate this survey. Your response is important for us!

https://umn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_bvm2A1lvzYfJN9H

Here is the link to our Meta:Research page. Feel free to sign up if you want to know the results! https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Main/sub-article_relationship

Wuqi333444 (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A request for additional input[edit]

Hi Lowellian—in addition to your post here could you weigh in further? Your post is being discussed further. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Rush (video gaming) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rush (video gaming) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush (video gaming) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin (talkcontribs) 20:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Lowellian. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Lowellian.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Lowellian. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

TFD notice[edit]

Since you have made at least 10 edits to Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, I thought you might want to comment on whether the accompanying templates should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLIX reverts[edit]

A quick heads up here before you go summarily reverting edits in progress at the Super Bowl XLIX: do not make summary reverts, and do not make reverts w/o cause.

You have done both. I am an experienced editor with some 40,000 Wikpedia edits to date. Thank you.24.61.220.85 (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not make a revert without cause. I reverted your edit [6] because the former score ordering makes sense given that the sentence was specifically pointing out the the subject of the sentence lost rather than won the game, and you reworded a sentence for no reason, indeed, in a way that is less clear than the previous wording. You're the one who initially reworded the sentence and thus undid someone else's edit without explanation. If you are an experienced editor with so many edits, perhaps you should create an account, but whether you are an experienced editor or not is not relevant here; the quality of an edit is what matters, and I reverted your edits because they did not improve the article. This is not about you; this is about the edits. —Lowellian (reply) 01:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
First, you have been by your own acclimation an administrator here at Wikipedia since time began, and thus know the errors in this.
Second, I am a native English speaker and a former player of the sport of football and someone who has been editing for publication for seven decades. Scores in that sport, from pee-wee to the NFL, are not recorded with the losing team's point total first, ever. I made that correction with the explicit notation "Proper format". It was you who summarily reverted that edit and a copyedit that followed it without explanation. Next, whether I am using my account or not has no bearing on the quality of my edits. As you well know over your decade plus of experience here, perhaps Wikpedia's greatest single problem, even greater than vandalism, which is easily patrolled for and reverted, is the driving away of good editors from bullying. Which is precisely the effect the type of summary reverts you made has, especially for a new user with only an IP address; thank goodness it did not escalate into a full-on edit war, in which the reverter invariably wins, virtually unanimously in cases involving experienced "account holders" who know the ropes versus new and vulnerable IP editors. Last, indeed it is about the edits, and they stand as made. Poor format, poor capitalization, poor grammar, and other errors of construction were addressed, not of fact, analysis, or opinion - believe me, I was careful not to risk any of the latter on such a page for the very reasons stated. Yours in good editing and an agreeable environment here at Wikipedia, 24.61.220.85 (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Pac-Man Arrangement[edit]

I redirected Pac-Man Arrangement after discussing the nomination with another editor, not because it "was not going my way". Plus, redirecting hardly equates deletion. It leaves the window open for an article return if someone feels significant improvements can be made, as opposed to eliminating the page outright. Thanks. sixtynine • speak up • 05:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Viewers no longer see the article or any of its content (no one's going to even know that page existed without checking the page history of the redirect, and who checks page histories of redirects in the course of normal browsing?), so redirecting like that is de-facto deletion. There is a proper process for deletion, AFD, which should have been allowed to go through to completion. Instead, after there was opposition on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pac-Man Arrangement and no one joined in voting delete, you withdrew the AFD without letting it go to completion and then redirected the article without any discussion on that article's talk page; talking to a single user who shares your view on their user talk page is not a fair open, community discussion.
Furthermore, on Talk:Pac-Man Arrangement, User:Jeff Silvers already expressed opposition to a merge, and you not only ignored that view but went even further in redirecting without even merging. Unintended or not, altogether, that gave the appearance of an attempt to unilaterally circumvent the due process of AFD which articles get under Wikipedia rules. If you want to redirect the article when there has already been opposition expressed by multiple users, you need to establish a community-wide consensus first, either on that article's talk page or on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.
Lowellian (reply) 08:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "redirecting it is essentially the same as deletion"—this is extremely irresponsible for an admin to say. It's totally within an editor's rights to redirect an article, per BRD, as it is another editor's rights to contest it. The article has been unsourced for a full decade. It is unfathomable to call it independently notable without providing any sourcing to back that position. I would also expect an admin to know that AfD is for deletion arguments only—if there is no rationale for deletion, it becomes a talk page merge discussion. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 17:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
What is "irresponsible" is withdrawing an AFD without letting it complete as soon as someone votes keep on the AFD so that the article can just be immediately redirected without open discussion and without merging the content. There's a big difference between redirecting without merging and redirecting with merging. Redirecting without merging, which was the action taken, is de-facto deletion: as mentioned earlier, viewers no longer see the article or any of its content (no one's going to even know that page existed without checking the page history of the redirect, and who checks page histories of redirects in the course of normal browsing?), and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
It is not "unfathomable" to think that the subject is deserving of its own article. I think so. The creator of the article thought so, and the editors who significantly expanded the article. Another user also thought so on the talk page. That's multiple users who thought so. Whether the subject is notable and deserving of an article is a debatable point, hence the AFD. Whether the decision would be keep or delete, at least that would be a fair process allowing the full community to air its views. Instead, withdrawing the AFD without letting it complete as soon as someone votes keep so that the article could be just immediately redirected without open discussion or merging the content is abusing the process.
If a completed AFD had been decided in favor of delete, that's okay, since then there would have been community discussion. If another discussion has a consensus that the article should be merged or redirected, that's also okay. What's not okay is redirecting without merging or discussion when there is known opposition.
Now that a discussion has been started on the talk page at Talk:List of Pac-Man video games#Proposed merge with Pac-Man Arrangement, that's good! That's the way the process is supposed to go, not with a unilateral redirect without merging or discussion when there was known opposition to the idea.
Lowellian (reply) 02:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
It's fine to close an AfD as speedy keep if the nominator withdraws and there are no other deletion arguments. No one thinks the page should be deleted, but there is consensus to redirect. As it stands, we still don't have sourcing for the article, and no other editor has argued for its independent notability. (And unsourced content is not only unsuited for merge, but should be deleted when wholly unsupported by reliable sources.) But we'll go through another discussion just for you. I am no longer watching this page--ping if you'd like a response czar 05:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Re: "No one thinks the page should be deleted, there is consensus to redirect". Clearly someone thought the page should be deleted, since it was first nominated for AFD, and then redirected without retaining any of its content. If there was a consensus to redirect, then that should have been established on the talk page or in the AFD. Neither was done: the only discussion on the talk page was of an editor against merger, and the AFD was closed prematurely, with only two editors (you and myself) commenting, and we were in disagreement; two editors in disagreement is not consensus. —Lowellian (reply) 06:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)