Jump to content

User talk:K7L/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:K7L

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 07:57, 13 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SIP address, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages UDP and Firewall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Respect national varieties of English

Information icon In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Chris the speller yack 18:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The text which you have been changing in multiple articles was originally submitted in English. You are changing it repeatedly to American, or even going as far as to claim that valid English spellings (such as "centre") are part of the French language. Your edits are therefore violating WP:RETAIN and are disruptive. Please cease and desist, unless the topic is blatantly US-centric (such as U.S. Route 66 or the US Highway system) to the point where there's some reason to use American instead of proper English. K7L (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I never claimed that 'centre' is part of the French language. According to you, there are two varieties of English, huh, American English and "proper" English? Now I see why the other editors find it difficult to have constructive discussions with you. I won't try. And you would be wise to refrain from contribution-stalking. Chris the speller yack 19:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Party line (telephony) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • //news.google.com/newspapers?id=jRkqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ESgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6310,5038221 Party line protected], The Milwaukee Journal, Jun 18, 1968</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Area code 600 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Number portability
Toll-free telephone number (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Number portability

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Area codes 416, 647 and 437 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bethesda, Ontario
Area codes 819 and 873 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Saint-Celestin, Quebec
Automatic number identification (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Plant test number

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Area codes 212 and 646, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Long distance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to CBM
Pan Am Railways (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to CBM

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

unexplained edits

Hi, you have made unexplained revert[1] of those two edits #1 and #2. Such behavior is disruptive please explain it on talk, thanks. --84.111.101.105 (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive edit

Hi, in your recent edit [2] stating that "If this is under NYT editorial control it should be WP:RS" You have reverted:

  1. [3] where i added rs tag and publication details.
  2. [4] where I removed information not in sources (stated as [while...] which run the risk of being WP:SYN ) and used the clarification as described in source.

As such your edit summary is misleading and doesn't cover you removals. Please reinstate the missing information. --84.111.101.105 (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything other than your bizarre misuse of {{rs}} to say the New York Times editorial is not a reliable source. You are the one who keeps removing things, mostly on pretexts like claiming to be copy-editing or combining something. K7L (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to U-Drop Inn may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • storm]]; the damaged elements were replaced by [[light emitting diode|LEDs]] in February 2014.<ref>{{cite web |author=Ron Warnick |title=U-Drop Inn neon lights are back on - in LED |publisher=Route
  • |publisher=Route 66 News |url=http://route66news.com/2014/02/12/u-drop-inn-neon-lights-back-led/ ]}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Blonde joke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Redhead, Clumsiness and Cluelessness
Lawyer joke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Scorn

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Railway Museum of Eastern Ontario may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • fight to keep rail stations from going the way of the steam train], Ottawa Citizen, Dec 10, 1984]</ref> as railways are federally regulated, locally-opposed demolitions of historic stations in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd already fixed that? K7L (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Smiths Falls may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] line extending westward via Napanee-Deseronto<ref>http://rmeo.org/hist_proj/?page_id=728</ref>). By 1887, the CPR had extended its Toronto-Smiths Falls mainline to reach [[Montréal]]; in 1924,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bay of Quinte Railway, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Salmon River, Trent River and Short line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Dihydrogen monoxide hoax

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Dihydrogen monoxide hoax shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Follow BRD. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of ten kilobytes of validly-sourced content unrelated to the point in dispute is disruption of Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT and is vandalism. You have been warned. You continued. I've therefore taken the matter to AIV. Do not vandalise articles to try to make a point again. K7L (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Everyone has rejected your bad faith interpretation of events, as well as your little disruptive and subversive temper tantrum edit war after you lost your attempt to change the title. Get over it, and don't try to disrupt the redirect again or disrupt the article again. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Your edits are problematic. Take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by Neuraxis, "User:BullRangifer has twice deleted my comment for a clarifiation request and is now alleging I am edit warring over it!". Evidently I am not the only one encountering problems with inappropriate removal of content on your part. Don't assume that, just because you've been here for a while and made valid contributions in the past, that you have a "get out of jail free card" if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia in the future - whether it's pushing your agenda that all chiropractors are quacks or merely deleting valid, sourced content from articles to prove a point, eventually these antics begin to wear very thin. K7L (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
My removal of a misplaced comment and advice to place it in the proper place was the "100% correct" thing to do. That Neuraxis complained and ignored my edit summary was also wrong, and you are making the same mistakes that he makes.
Face it:
  1. You lost your attempt to change the title of the article. Consensus was against you. Being a sore loser,
  2. you then ignored that consensus and tried to sneakily edit your version in place, but were reverted.
  3. I caught you and deleted your attempts, then
  4. you filed a dubious complaint at AIV and that too was rejected (Edit summary: "notvand".
  5. You don't seem to know what a POINT violation is, yet you keep using that term.
  6. There is no evidence of any vandalism on my part.
  7. You then used a sockpuppet in an attempt to misuse the redirect to create the article as you'd like it.
  8. No one agrees with you.
  9. All this demonstrates massive incompetence.
  10. It also demonstrates tendentious and battlefield behavior.
  11. BTW. I don't think all chiropractors are quacks. I have no idea where you got that idea.
  12. It's your numerous antics which are wearing thin, not mine.
Find other, less contentious, areas to edit. You should be blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm MrBill3. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Functional medicine seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Seek consensus before making substantial changes to a controversial article. Your edits do not reflect NPOV or MEDRS. MrBill3 (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

I'm sorry about accidentally leaving two wikilinks. While composing my own comment, I wanted to easily check the history of those links (which link to Properties of water), but I forgot to remove the wikilinks when I finally submitted my comment. No offense intended. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Information icon Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Functional medicine has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do.

The above edit summary does not accurately reflect the substantial addition of content that edit involved. MrBill3 (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The substantial addition of content was made back here by another editor; I was trying to clean up that edit's duplicate references, unmatched brackets and make clear claims made were from proponents and not from neutral sources. I am not the original author and have no horse in this race. K7L (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eskimo Pie, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tropicana and Trix. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Channel 75, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AMPS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rhinoceros Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Turner (politician). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop

Please "cease and desist". Valid talk needs to be on the article talk page, not a redirect page, perhaps you have not understood that. Article talk should not be spread out over multiple locations. My talk page is my talk page, do not undo my edits, it is my prerogative to delete what I please on my talk page. See: WP:OWNTALK. Please familiarize yourself with what is civil behavior, and what constitutes vandalism, before making accusations, as none of my actions have been disruptive. If you feel that my actions are "detrimental" to the integrity of "Wikipedia", then instead of edit warring like you have done, and creating broken discussion treads for an article, please feel free to take it up with an administrator, and I will gladly accept any sanctions imposed by their enlightened judgement.--Notwillywanka (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the user talk page warnings are kept in the page history - that's the only reason why policy condones hiding them from the current version. By moving your entire talk page to a /delete subpage, you are attempting to hide them not only from the current version of the page but also from the article history. That is not acceptable. Furthermore, Talk:Collège de Jonquière is a perfectly valid talk page. Only you are demanding that it be redirected, and as such your removal of valid comments by other editors is vandalism. Do this again and I will report it. K7L (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Please report me immediately if you feel that way. Otherwise leave things the way they should be.--Notwillywanka (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Reported. Please do not vandalise Wikipedia again to make a WP:POINT. K7L (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

66 Motel

I have to admit my January 2 edit on 66 Motel (Needles) is poorly planned, as I found out I had removed the hotel's founding date and relevent back-history.

I still think the content in the article has to be changed, but not in a large scale. Couldn't details of I-40's construction through town just be in the "Decline" section? TheGGoose (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll move the Red Rock Bridge information to the Topock, Arizona article. TheGGoose (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The bridges might be a valid article topic in their own right. Trails Arch Bridge is on the US National Register of Historic Places, was given a WP article on July 2013 at Old Trails Bridge and is notable independently of Carty's Camp or the later Needles motel. The Red Rock Bridge is the direct successor to the Old Trails arch bridge, so the info should be moved there instead of to the city in Arizona. K7L (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, whatever works, but I won't move the details between the articles. TheGGoose (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: NotWillyWonka

In regards to your comments at RFPP, please note that it's generally discouraged to throw out claims of sockpuppetry. I would strongly suggest that you either file a request at WP:SPI or retract your statement. As for the user page, users are allowed to remove warnings from their page and they shouldn't be restored. If there are continued actions related to the warning (e.g. user vandalizes, removes warning, then resumes vandalizing), then you can escalate it through the proper venues. Since the user has request that you stop restoring the edits, please note that further restorations can be considered disruptive editing. Mike V • Talk 05:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The user had been moving the entire talk page (with the warnings in the history) to a subpage and nominating that subpage (invalidly) for speedy deletion. An administrator, as part of a rename of an inappropriate user name containing "willy" and "wank", attempted to piece the history back together and created a new user talk page under NotWillyWonka with a proper {{archive}}. The user appears to be trying to make that history go away by using two accounts. I appreciate your concern and have opened a WP:SPI investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NotWillyWonka. There's a huge difference between merely archiving warnings (which is permitted) vs. aggressively hiding them as this user has done, while continuing to edit disruptively. K7L (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
There were indeed some problems with this user, but they have been solved. They now have a new username which they are using. Your SPI is seriously malformed. The only problem I can see is that they don't leave a link to the archive on their talk page. That should be fixed. There has been no attempt to delete the archive. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
They're using both a new username and the renamed old username in parallel, so that is two simultaneous accounts. One or the other should be abandoned. K7L (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The renamed username (NotWillyWonka) is proper to use. If NoGoodOnesLeft is a sockpuppet, that wouldn't be good, but you need to provide evidence. Not everyone who opposes you on one article (and in this case is siding with you on another) is a sockpuppet. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toll-free telephone numbers in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page N11. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Number pooling may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • and special access services; originally based on [[PBX]] standards such as [[direct inward dial]]], these evolved into full [[competitive local exchange carrier]]s (CLEC) such as [[Teleport

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Number pooling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phone jack. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Mayors

You're correct that a newly elected mayor who hasn't taken office yet is a mayor-elect, not a mayor. However, and this is the important part, the mayor-elect is listed in the infobox as supplementary data to the outgoing incumbent mayor until the new one is formally sworn in on December 1. For example, in London we don't just remove Joni Baechler from the infobox so that "Mayor-elect Matt Brown" is the only person listed there at all — we list both Baechler and Brown, next to the appropriate titles, until the changeover actually happens. Bearcat (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to undo damage done by a user pulling the new mayors' names completely out of the article and putting old info back, as if the elections had never happened. I have no objection to listing both names. I am, however, not OK with what's there now as the new names are completely missing. K7L (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
In the case of London, what you did was to replace an edit which did list both Baechler and Brown, exactly the way you say you are okay with, with a version which only named Brown and erased Baechler entirely. As important as listing the mayor-elect may be, it is more important to not remove the incumbent yet — until December 1, the new mayor-elect is still secondary information. They may absolutely be added as a supplementary field alongside the incumbent mayor, but that's not what you did. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
In the case of Kirkland Lake, what the user did was pull the successful candidate out of the mayor-elect slot and demote them back to their individual local council seat, effectively reverting the outcome of the entire election. That was not constructive and was likely my reason for concern that the edits to London were merely more of the same. Kirkland Lake needs to be fixed or outright reverted. K7L (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you're misreading what happened there too. The new mayor-elect, Tony Antoniazzi, hadn't been denoted as "mayor-elect" in the edit that NWW reverted — he had been inserted in place of Bill Enouy as the incumbent mayor without any acknowledgement of the "elect" nuance. Which means that NWW's edit was actually correct — sure, it might have been preferable for them to correct the situation by readding Enouy to the appropriate field while creating a new field to denote Antoniazzi as mayor-elect, but what they did do wasn't wrong in the way that you're claiming it was. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotWillyWonka (talk • contribs) 13:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Obahai Technology

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Obahai Technology, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jersey92 (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ten-digit dialing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PBX. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

wkipe-tan blaking

hello,im writing you so that you know the reason why was Wikipe-tanblanked.the reason was:somebody created a page about wikipe-tan in the Greek Wikipedia.howewer the page was deleted and somebody forgot to remove the iterwiki link to the page.removed it but it was still wisible on the English Wikipedia.again I tried to remove it but,it didn't work.then I thought that removing the link was just a waste of time,and I nominated it for deletion.now the page blanking was because I porposed the page for deletion.as well why do you want to keep this page:in the greek Wikipedia it was that disliked that it has been deleted one and a half hour after It was created.and do not add the message about User:ClueBot NG and theAntikithera device vandalism.the user who did this has left Wikipedia.--87.228.204.54 (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The interwiki links have been moved to Wikidata (d:) and are no longer stored directly in each local language article. The English-language Wikipedia operates independently of the Greek one or any of the others, so whatever goes on there is no excuse to vandalise or blank content here. Page content is normally left intact during a deletion discussion; bona-fide attempts to expand or improve the page are OK, but deleting, blanking or redirecting a title while the deletion is still being discussed is generally a no-no (WP:CSD is a different animal, but WP:AfD and its siblings are discussed first). It's not a question of whether I want to keep this page; we do things by consensus here, not unilaterally, if they look to be controversial. K7L (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Obihai Technology
added a link pointing to FXS
Romance scam
added a link pointing to Gold digger

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

International Airport

The Good Article Barnstar
Congratulations, International airport, an article you helped in prove as an active contributor amongst the team over at the wikiproject Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement has now been recognized with Good Article status here on Wikipedia. Your contributions among the the TAFI team and Wikipedia as a whole are appreciated. David Condrey log talk 08:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits to WP:HOAX

Resolved

Please note that all of Wikipedia's content is released under a license that requires attribution - that is, an indication of who wrote it. When you pasted a copy of the beginning of Piltdown Man, though, you made no such indication. Please be careful about such things in the future - see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've footnoted both versions of the Piltdown excerpt now; one is copyright-expired (1913) and the other is an excerpt linking back to Piltdown Man in-wiki, but this should be unambiguous? K7L (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's good. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ordination mill, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fourteenth Amendment. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Cramming

Please cite your additions. It is also customary that when your additions are reverted, you seek to support what you've added, rather than simply immediately putting it back in. That just leads to edit warring and isn't productive. In particular, what source are you using to determine that cramming is most common in the US, and this is due to the breakup of bell?

Why did you revert my edit on The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. Do you disagree with what I said, or were you making a point?

Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

And where are the points you are adding to Perverse incentive sourced from? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Please also see my points on the VBuzzer talk page. The edits by the IP user were valid and you shouldn't have reverted them. Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of humorous units of measurement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York Minute. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Area codes 450 and 579
added links pointing to Saint-Simon, Quebec, Hemmingford, Quebec, Saint-Denis, Quebec, Bedford, Quebec, Valcourt, Quebec, Saint-Damase, Quebec and Sainte-Sabine, Quebec
Area codes 418 and 581
added links pointing to Saint-Augustin, Quebec, Saint-Léon-le-Grand, Quebec, Sainte-Perpétue, Quebec, Sainte-Félicité, Quebec, Saint-Siméon, Quebec and Saint-François, Quebec

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverting other editors

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Streisand effect 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.--McGeddon (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You are also edit warring. I am attempting to discuss at Talk:Streisand effect but you are removing content (which has been added repeatedly by multiple editors) before that discussion can reach a conclusion. I draw your attention to WP:DTTR and advise that you either show evidence of your WP:3RR allegations or withdraw them per WP:AGF. I would also ask that you stop removing valid, sourced information and let the talk page discussion run its course. Go the requests per page protection route if you like, but don't cry to me if that just gets the page locked on "the wrong version". That happens when people remove content absent consensus to do so. K7L (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Cable television piracy

Thanks for the great pagemove...definitely works better as a title than just plain 'cable theft'. Nate • (chatter) 02:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: AfC Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

AfC is broken

Of course AfC is broken, and there is a lot of support for that notion in the backrooms of Wikipedia. The best thing to do would be to scrap it altogether and there is a lot of support for that too. But before we can do that we have to convince the community that it's broken. Small changes like the one proposed highlight the problems surrounding AfC and the neeed for something else. Small changes lead to bigger ones. An RfC does not need to run for a full 30 days if the consensus become perfectly clear early on. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

Please read WP:OUTING. Vrac (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not outing if the user posted under her legal name (ie User: (first initial)(last name)) about her own company and her name is already (quite voluntarily) plastered all over that company's press releases. The user is the one abusing Wikipedia for publicity. The posts were not anonymous nor pseudonymous. I've revealed nothing this person isn't already screaming from the rooftops. K7L (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:OUTING again. It is against Wikipedia policy to publicly post someone's contact information, regardless of what their user name is. There is no reason to post such information. There are other venues for dealing with conflict of interest. If ever it became necessary to provide proof of COI (which in this case it isn't because the COI is so obvious), then the information can be emailed privately to an admin. From WP:OUTING:

"If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team."

The only contact info is straight off the company's own press release. They're already aggressively publicising this, I'm not WP:OUTING anything. K7L (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The policy is unambiguous. You are obviously free to disagree but at the possible cost of editing privileges; be advised posting such information is grounds for an immediate block. Vrac (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Unless you are the administrator here, I would strongly advise that you refrain from threatening other users with blocks or bans. Leave the moderating to the moderators. K7L (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to RadioShack may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 1_layoff-notices-e-mail-radioshack-layoffs|title=Re: Radioshack Layoffs -- This 1's 4u :-(|work=Hartford Courant}}</ref> Four hundred and three workers were given 30 minutes to collect

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a false-positive.  :-( K7L (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Information icon In a recent edit to the page Motel, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Also note that it is completely improper to remove {{Use American English}} tag without the Consensus to do so – do not attempt such an edit again without first gaining consensus for it. --IJBall (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The material was originally submitted as I have it, for instance "the Trans-Canada Highway covers thousands of kilometres...". Furthermore, this article is not about the USA per se. It's about motels worldwide. One user has been edit-warring US spelling into the piece, even though he has otherwise contributed nothing of use to the article and has repeatedly made edits which removed valid contributions by other users. I am WP:RETAINing the spelling in which the material was originally submitted. There was no consensus to template this with "Use American...", that was done by one user over objections from others, and is quite improper. Please don't do this again. K7L (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. The original English variety of the article is American English. That is obvious from the article's edit history. WP:Retain clearly states that is to be retained. Your submission in British English was flawed in that it failed to respect the guideline, and so it was corrected. There is no requirement that an article be specifically about the United States to be in American English. That is an utterly incorrect reading of WP:ENGVAR. And American English is no less English thatn British English, which your edit summaries and talk page contributions clearly show you to believe. You are wrong. Period. You have repeatedly shown that you do not understand that. The tag was added after discussion on the article talk page. You have attempted to remove it despite its correct placement according to WP:ENGVAR. Time and again you have attempted to force your utterly incorrect, and frankly outright insulting, readings of guidelines in the article. This is not the first time you have been warned about this, so it is time for you to knock it off. oknazevad (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the talk page. The discussion ended in 2013 with no consensus. I would suggest that you do *not* add the "Use American..." tag again until you obtain consensus. You are doing harm to the article at this point, as your conduct is interfering with valid contributions. Stop. K7L (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
For the record, you are mis-characterizing that discussion. The original discussion in late 2013 was about an overemphasis at Motel on U.S. motels – most agreed that was probably a valid criticism. On the issue of {{Use American English}}, you argued against it, and two others cited WP:RETAIN, which you basically ignored. It is pretty clear that consensus is, and has been, on the side of keeping American English at the article. --IJBall (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't ignore it, I pointed out (correctly) that the text was originally submitted in English. That discussion ended without consensus. The {{globalise}} issue was also unresolved, and dates back to at least 2011. K7L (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

And just to make myself absolutely clear:

  1. American English is no less English than British English.
  2. An article does not have to be specifically about the US to be in American English.
  3. WP:RETAIN states plainly that the earliest ENGVAR is to be kept.
  4. The motel article was begun in American English, and so the article is written in American English.

oknazevad (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the history. 57% of the article was contributed by one user. In English. Furthermore, you have been repeatedly removing {{globalise}} and {{split}} tags without any consensus, while edit-warring in POV and agenda-pushing tags in an attempt to turn this into an article about the United States. You have been asked to stop doing this for at least two years now, yet you continue. Repeatedly, you have removed valid contributions to the article just to try to make some sort of misguided WP:POINT. You have contributed nothing of value to the motel article, and your conduct is interfering with efforts by others to do so. I would also advise that you desist from falsely labelling other users as sock puppets, as you did here. Please stop. K7L (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
"I looked at the history. 57% of the article was contributed by one user. In English." The whole article is in English and always has been, since it was started in 2004. . This is exactly what I'm talking about. You refuse to acknowledge that American English is valid English. That is utterly unacceptable. Do not persist. oknazevad (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It is quite clear that you are WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia's coverage of motels or travel. You are here to use this article as a football (presumably an American football, not a soccer ball) to push some bizarre agenda. In the process of doing this, you are reverting valid contributions in a manner which is harming the encyclopaedia. Effectively, you're acting as if you WP:OWN the page and are chasing away good-faith contributors. That's harmful to the project. K7L (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Question: How is it WP:OWN if two (now three) other editors have backed Oknazevad's interpretation of WP:RETAIN? He's not pushing a "personal agenda", he's trying to maintain the consensus view at the article. --IJBall (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Multiple editors have attempted to contribute, only to be chased away by Oknazevad's repeated edit warring and removal of valid contributions. That's harming the project. K7L (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
But they weren't "valid contributions" if they were made while ignoring the article's {{Use American English}} tag. --IJBall (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me? Now that is disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. Dumb move. K7L (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion: Take it to WP:Dispute resolution – because what you are currently doing is edit warring, and that is not "better". But the record seems to support Oknazevad's take – at least three other editors over the years have objected to your attempts to overthrow WP:RETAIN, and you are the only editor I've seen pushing British English at Motel. --IJBall (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I was being perfectly quiet until Oknazevad started edit-warring another contributor about railway stations, or train stations, or some such. I am not the only victim of his antics. Furthermore, you are the one edit warring as your latest edits removed valid contributions to the article. This is disruption to prove a WP:POINT. Don't do that again. K7L (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
So, "your way, or the highway"? Got it. Yeah, I've been seeing a lot of this lately... --IJBall (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --IJBall (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K7L/Archive_2&oldid=1076850494"