User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc

This is Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22: 10 days

Vandalism
Level 3

Fellow Domer

I saw your note and I figured I'd write back. I am a grad of NDLS - I hope your semester is ending well, and that your summer is either relaxing (if you're a first year) fruitful (if you're a second year) or effective (if you are studying for the Bar). Best of luck; --NDSteve10 (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm finishing up second year. It's been a real ride. Hope the industry is treating you well! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Your recent editing history at Williams Landing railway station 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.

The case is not resolved yet, it's more appropriate to use Citation needed tag rather than completely remove it at this stage. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netmapper (talk • contribs) 06:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently in response to this. Without merit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Brigade

Please stop tagging this redirect. There is no possibility of this ever becoming a full article by itself as it is inherently not notable. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:REDCAT. Redirects should be categorized. I really don't understand your obsession with this topic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No they should not. It's optional only, and in this case it is not needed. There is no obsession, except by the person (not you) who keeps re-creating this article. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who's recreating the article? It's a redirect. Adding a category to the redirect to aid redirect categorization doesn't change the fact that it's a redirect. And frankly, I don't understand the logic behind your argument: it's optional, therefore it should be removed? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history. You'll see a troublemaking 59.101 IP who keeps bringing it back when it's nowhere near notable. I mentioned "optional" because you were making out that it was compulsory, and it's not. It only applies to redirects that could be made into articles - and this one can't be. So for that reason your edit should be removed. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand the entire purpose of redirect categorization. I'm restoring the redirects. Thanks for your explanation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think you understand that what you are doing is insinuating that an article could be created from that part - and I'm telling you that is not possible. So the categorisation is not appropriate in that instance, and it's wrong anyway. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is persisting without understanding you are misusing WP:REDCAT. The category you have given is wrong on top of everything else. "Member" does not apply, and categorising it insinuates that an article is possible - and it's not. Do you understand me? 124.180.170.151 (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a third opinion who has this page on a watchlist, I agree with Mendaliv. Categorising redirects says nothing about possible article notability, it's merely putting a redirect into a category. CMD (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. If that's the intent, then the wording of the re-direct category template needs work and badly. Besides, the category being applied here is wrong anyway. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with the wording at Template:R from member? I also see no reason why teams can not count as members of leagues. CMD (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wording issue is from the other template that Mendaliv was trying to add. With this template "This is a redirect from a person who is a member of a group" (note the bolded part by me) is clearly and absolutely not appropriate. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]