User talk:Article editor

Welcome!

Hello, Article editor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Blocked

I have emergency-blocked you to stop you from doing your undiscussed and controversial mass edits. You can be unblocked whenever you agree to stop making undiscussed mass edits and to form consensus for any further moves and redirects you wish to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Article editor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been blocked for "mass edits"—mostly creating redirects and recently moving three pages. Most redirects were plausible misspellings or alternative romanizations. If unblocked, I will refrain on other types of redirects.

The recent moves were Salafi, Wahhabi, and Ahmadiyya → Salafism, Wahhabism, and Ahmadism. Though undiscussed, these terms are not unheard of: "salafism" and "wahhabism" appear in the header paragraphs, and are not uncommon terms ([1], [2], [3]). The original titles were either adjectives or refer to a person, while "-ism" forms a noun. These titles were neutral, although I admit Ahmadism may not be common enough. I had not been involved in a renaming dispute recently except for those, and will refrain from bold moves in the future. Article editor (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We're backlogged a bit, so temporarily declining this for the time being without prejudice; once you have an opportunity to respond to Thryduulf's comments below, please post a new unblock template so we know to check back. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For reference, the ANI discussion of the incident is here. That discussion shows at least two moves/redirects which immediately threw up red flags from other editors, and I imagine there are more as well that would have caused concern had they been noticed. Do you plan to discuss any moves you might be considering in the future with editors on those articles? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will discuss page moves in the talk page in the future. --Article editor (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to consider unblocking you. However, I am not satisfied that you are really aware of the extent of the problem. Some of the redirects you have created might be defensible, while some have been ridiculous. However, even for those that are not totally indefensible, it is not necessary to create a redirect for every possible misspelling or alternative romanisation you can think of that someone somewhere might conceivably sometime search for: just the ones that are likely to be commonly searched for are enough. I also see that you have been creating controversial redirects and making controversial moves since 2006, and as far as I can see your only response to messages about the problems, before you were blocked, was to remove them from this talk page. You have said that you will discuss page moves in future, which is fine. However, on the subject of redirects, you say "Most redirects were plausible misspellings or alternative romanizations. If unblocked, I will refrain on other types of redirects." The problem there is that your idea of what is "plausible" does not always agree with that of other editors. I would really prefer you to undertake to stay away from redirects altogether, and at the very least would want a much stronger undertaking to restrict your redirecting activity before I was willing to unblock you. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No editor has, as an absolute imperative, to create redirects. I would only be happy to unblock, in view of your very long history, if you agreed not to create any redirects at all, of any kind and in any area. I await your response, please. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree to cease creating redirects, but I want to make sure it's understood that I won't be giving up rights to editing an existing redirect, e.g. for purposes such as making it more specifically targeted (this is only an example). --Article editor (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not personally accept that limitation; I will let another admin decide from here in.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-Administrator Intervention) I hate to see editors getting their hands tied behind their backs like we're throwing at Article Editor here but when it has to be done it has to be done. I'm problably not going to be very popular asking this but are we sure his username doesn't break any rules? On matters of what he was blocked for I have a suggestion, how about unblock him but ban him from doing redirects at all with long bans or perma-bans in place if he makes the mistake of not following that ban? MIVP - Allow us to be of assistance to you. (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 12:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking conditions

Regarding the username, I don't see any issues with it. Regarding the reason for the block, I understand it, the complete ban on redirects was what Anthony.bradbury proposed above (although without the explicit sanction) and Article editor indicated he was not happy with. AE: How about the following instead:

You are not allowed to create any redirects yourself except where both the redirect and its target are within your own user or user talk namespaces.
- e.g. redirecting user:Article editor/Page 1 to User:Article editor/Page 2 or user talk:Article editor/Page 2 is allowed. Redirecting User:Article editor/Page 1 to Wikipedia:Example is not.
You must discuss and gain consensus for all pages moves. If you move a page, you may allow the system to create a redirect as normal. You may not move a page with the sole intention of creating a redirect.
- e.g. moving Example to Piemērs and then back again so that the latter title redirects to the former is not allowed.
You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the creation of redirects on the talk page of the proposed target and/or a relevant wikiproject or centralised discussion, but you may not create them yourself even if there is consensus in favour of them. If the discussion is not at the proposed target's talk page, you must link to the discussion from there.
You may not retarget any existing redirect except where both the redirect and it's new target are within your user or user talk namespace.
- .e.g. editing a redirect at user:Article editor/Page 1 so the target is user:Article editor/Page 3 or user talk:Article editor/Page 2 is allowed. Editing it so the target is Talk:Example is not.
You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the retargetting of a redirect at one of (a) the talk page of the current target, (b) the talk page of the proposed target, (c) the talk page of the redirect itself (you are allowed to create the talk page for this if it does not already exist), (d) a relevant WikiProject or centralised discussion, or (e) Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the discussion is at (a) then you must link to it from (b) and vice versa. If the discussion is at (c) or (d) you must link to it from both (a) and (b). If the discussion is at (e) then you must link to it from the talk page of (a) and (b) if the redirect is not tagged with an RfD template. You may create the talk pages as necessary to comply with this. In all cases you may also link to the discussion from elsewhere at your discretion.
You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the deletion or retargetting of any redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and you are allowed to edit a redirect in order to nominate it according to the instructions at RfD.
You are allowed to make neutral statements that inform users or groups of users about the discussion of any redirect relevant to that person or group. You may do this wherever the discussion is taking place.
You are not allowed to implement the consensus of any RfD discussion.
You are all allowed to take part in discussions about redirects started by others, wherever that discussion is.
Any discussion you initiate or contribute to may be about either one or more than one redirect. In the latter case the above rules apply to every redirect being discussed as if it were being discussed individually.
- e.g. if you propose the retargetting of three redirects in one discussion, you must notify the current and proposed targets of all 3.
You may not group unrelated redirects into a single discussion and all groups must be finite in number.
You are not allowed to initiate more than five discussions about redirects in any 24 hour period. This is totalled across all venues and includes RfD nominations. The limit is the number of discussions, not the number of redirects being discussed in each.
You are not restricted on the number of existing discussions to which you may contribute.
If a discussion about a redirect in which you have taken part has reached a consensus for an action that you are not allowed to perform, but which has not been implemented after a reasonable time, you may ask another user to implement it. You may do this by means of a request on a relevant talk page or user talk page. You may at your discretion use the {{edit request}} system, and you may create talk pages of existing redirects in order to do so.
You may tag existing redirects with an categorisation template per WP:RCAT. You may also correct and/or update existing categorisation templates.
You may tag the talk pages of existing redirects with the banners of relevant WikiProjects (unless that WikiProject objects, either generally or specifically), and you may create the talk pages if necessary. You may also correct and/or update existing banners.

I know that looks a lot, but it is just setting out what are actually fairly simple rules about what you can and cannot do relating to redirects. Hopefully they are unambiguous and easy to follow without the opportunity for anyone to wikilawyer around them - most of them are actually about what you explicitly can do, rather than what you can't.

tldr: You may not create or retarget any redirect outside your user or user talk space. You may propose the creation, retargetting or deletion of redirects at the appropriate venue provided you advertise these discussions, but you may not initiate more than five proposals in any 24 hours and you may not implement the consensus of these discussions. You may contribute to an unlimited number of existing discussions about redirects regardless of who started them. You are allowed to categorise redirects and tag their talk pages for wikiprojects. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goko and Gokō nominated at RfD

Two redirects you created in 2009, Goko and Gokō, both of which point to Kim Dae-jung, have been nominated at RfD - see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 6#Goko. I recognise that you are currently blocked and so are unable to comment directly there, but I will copy any comments you make on this page to the discussion on your behalf. This is a good opportunity to demonstrate the behaviour you will employ in future, which will guide decision on your unblock request. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I created the redirects, and at first I had trouble remembering what they referred to. I understand that they probably should be deleted. --Article editor (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment, I've copied it to the discussion for you (and sorry it took a while). [4] Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reactivating request for unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Article editor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reactivating a temporarily closed request for unblock. See previous request for earlier discussion. --Article editor (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Given your acceptance of the editing restrictions, and nobody commenting for over a day, I have unblocked you subject to abiding by those restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept Thryduulf's proposal. I was only afraid that accepting a blanket ban on redirects would have severely limited my ability to edit.

As for MIVP's concern, my username had already been discussed here: [5]. --Article editor (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's already been concencus on your username I have no problem with it. Your username triggered WP:ISU in my head but since you've already had one username problem i'm not going to give you a second, have a good day :) MIVP - Allow us to be of assistance to you. (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 10:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting those restrctions, hopefully now we can all move forward. For ease of reference, you might want to copy the editing restrictions to a page in your userspace, but I leave that entirely to your discretion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of linking at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, I've copied the restrictions verbatim from above here.

Agreed editing restrictions

You are not allowed to create any redirects yourself except where both the redirect and its target are within your own user or user talk namespaces.
- e.g. redirecting user:Article editor/Page 1 to User:Article editor/Page 2 or user talk:Article editor/Page 2 is allowed. Redirecting User:Article editor/Page 1 to Wikipedia:Example is not.
You must discuss and gain consensus for all pages moves. If you move a page, you may allow the system to create a redirect as normal. You may not move a page with the sole intention of creating a redirect.
- e.g. moving Example to Piemērs and then back again so that the latter title redirects to the former is not allowed.
You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the creation of redirects on the talk page of the proposed target and/or a relevant wikiproject or centralised discussion, but you may not create them yourself even if there is consensus in favour of them. If the discussion is not at the proposed target's talk page, you must link to the discussion from there.
You may not retarget any existing redirect except where both the redirect and it's new target are within your user or user talk namespace.
- .e.g. editing a redirect at user:Article editor/Page 1 so the target is user:Article editor/Page 3 or user talk:Article editor/Page 2 is allowed. Editing it so the target is Talk:Example is not.
You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the retargetting of a redirect at one of (a) the talk page of the current target, (b) the talk page of the proposed target, (c) the talk page of the redirect itself (you are allowed to create the talk page for this if it does not already exist), (d) a relevant WikiProject or centralised discussion, or (e) Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If the discussion is at (a) then you must link to it from (b) and vice versa. If the discussion is at (c) or (d) you must link to it from both (a) and (b). If the discussion is at (e) then you must link to it from the talk page of (a) and (b) if the redirect is not tagged with an RfD template. You may create the talk pages as necessary to comply with this. In all cases you may also link to the discussion from elsewhere at your discretion.
You are allowed to propose and/or discuss the deletion or retargetting of any redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and you are allowed to edit a redirect in order to nominate it according to the instructions at RfD.
You are allowed to make neutral statements that inform users or groups of users about the discussion of any redirect relevant to that person or group. You may do this wherever the discussion is taking place.
You are not allowed to implement the consensus of any RfD discussion.
You are all allowed to take part in discussions about redirects started by others, wherever that discussion is.
Any discussion you initiate or contribute to may be about either one or more than one redirect. In the latter case the above rules apply to every redirect being discussed as if it were being discussed individually.
- e.g. if you propose the retargetting of three redirects in one discussion, you must notify the current and proposed targets of all 3.
You may not group unrelated redirects into a single discussion and all groups must be finite in number.
You are not allowed to initiate more than five discussions about redirects in any 24 hour period. This is totalled across all venues and includes RfD nominations. The limit is the number of discussions, not the number of redirects being discussed in each.
You are not restricted on the number of existing discussions to which you may contribute.
If a discussion about a redirect in which you have taken part has reached a consensus for an action that you are not allowed to perform, but which has not been implemented after a reasonable time, you may ask another user to implement it. You may do this by means of a request on a relevant talk page or user talk page. You may at your discretion use the {{edit request}} system, and you may create talk pages of existing redirects in order to do so.
You may tag existing redirects with an categorisation template per WP:RCAT. You may also correct and/or update existing categorisation templates.
You may tag the talk pages of existing redirects with the banners of relevant WikiProjects (unless that WikiProject objects, either generally or specifically), and you may create the talk pages if necessary. You may also correct and/or update existing banners.

I know that looks a lot, but it is just setting out what are actually fairly simple rules about what you can and cannot do relating to redirects. Hopefully they are unambiguous and easy to follow without the opportunity for anyone to wikilawyer around them - most of them are actually about what you explicitly can do, rather than what you can't.

tldr: You may not create or retarget any redirect outside your user or user talk space. You may propose the creation, retargetting or deletion of redirects at the appropriate venue provided you advertise these discussions, but you may not initiate more than five proposals in any 24 hours and you may not implement the consensus of these discussions. You may contribute to an unlimited number of existing discussions about redirects regardless of who started them. You are allowed to categorise redirects and tag their talk pages for wikiprojects. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red asterisks

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_longest_suspension_bridge_spans&oldid=255763396 Note: Click on each bridge's rank to go to the bridge's official Web site. Ranks with a red asterisk (*) do not have official Web sites, nor do they have English-language versions and are linked instead to a reference entry. 1886kusagi (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

Hi, thanks for your good work on the English Wikipedia. Please note that dates, years, and common terms are not normally linked. Tony (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ITN credit

On 23 May 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2013 Stockholm riots, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

ThaddeusB (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:SYNTH!

Your reversion of my changes reintroduces an undue synthesis (WP:SYNTH) which is a violation of the wikipedia policies. We cannot know who are the rioters/arsoners before they're arrested. Don't use Wikipedia for a political agenda! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Talk:2013 Stockholm riots, to discuss before reverting false info. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I just thought it worthwhile to say that I think you have an awesome nickname. "Six by nine. Forty two." (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ibiza Town - why did you support the move?

Hello, Article editor. You have new messages at Talk:Ibiza Town.
Message added 22:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Date linking

Hi, just noticed you'd linked a full date; by community consensus since 2009, this is not normally done. Thanks. Tony (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am sorry to bother you, but because I am not a very experienced Wikipedia contributor, I would like you to please be responsible of the move/change of title in Lebanese Arabic when consensus is reached – of course if you are okay with that. You would be of great help. And if not if you would please explain to me -in a nutshell– when a I allowed to change the title and how to do so. Thanks a lot. >>With respects Youssefbassil6 (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to help, but the suggested title already has a history. This means that only an administrator will be able to move the page to the title, which I'm not. I would not worry about closing the discussion when the time comes, though. Wait at least seven days to come to a consensus, and an admin will come to close the discussion however it turns out. --Article editor (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rügen Wars of Succession and Lüneburg War of Succession

Hi Article editor, please help me understand the logic for moving the articles above to their new names. Did any discussion take place - if so, I wasn't informed as the article creator. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were posted here. --Article editor (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. I have moved them to Wars of the Rügen Succession and War of the Lüneburg Succession which are consistent with the rest e.g. War of the Jülich Succession. Bermicourt (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Westgte

I never swore. At any rate, the move is sas explained. Per BRDd all the moves going on need discussion.(Lihaas (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Edit war on Aminah bint Wahb

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Aminah bint Wahb.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action. Tanbircdq (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical move requests

Hello Article editor. I declined several requests that you filed at WP:RMTR. These proposals seem to take your proposed move of French First Republic as a precedent. However the move discussion at Talk:French First Republic#Requested move ended with No Consensus. If you believe that First Republic (France) is the best proposal I suggest you open a new discussion there. Should this find consensus, then your other proposals could also make sense. I don't see a lot of enthusiasm for First Republic (France) in the comments that were made after yours. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Article editor. You have new messages at Talk:Seljuq_Empire#Great.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Category:Our Miracle

Category:Our Miracle, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now listed as a regular move proposal

See Talk:Egyptian Constitution of 2014#Requested move since a bit of reverting at both the source and the target articles suggests that opinions are divided. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined four technical moves including XYY syndrome

Hello Article editor. These proposed moves appear non-trivial to me, so I've declined the request as a technical move. One issue is whether there should be a space after the comma. There's also a Template:Chromosomal abnormalities that currently uses the old names. It seems that a larger set of articles might need to be moved if your new system is adopted. Also, do you know what names are most common in reliable sources? Perhaps you can open a requested move on a suitable page that will get the attention of people who know this topic. The edit history of {{Chromosomal abnormalities}} might give you an idea of people to notify. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Russian invasion of Crimea for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Russian invasion of Crimea 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/Russian invasion of Crimea 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. —rybec 07:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

Hi!

I'm afraid I've just closed and rejected three of your proposed moves with the rationale Royal name instead of personal name, and with some critical comments. I might have relisted them but this had already been done once. Please don't take this personally, we're urged to be bold and this sometimes has results like this, inevitably.

I hope the criticism there might be constructive. Feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you think I can help with move requests, or anything else for that matter. Andrewa (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of America listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Republic of America. Since you had some involvement with the Republic of America redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 04:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of America listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Federation of America. Since you had some involvement with the Federation of America redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 04:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Greater Korea for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Greater Korea 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/Greater Korea 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. Holdek (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Corea listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect South Corea. Since you had some involvement with the South Corea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 00:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaoxian Minzhuzhuyi Renmin Gongheguo listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chaoxian Minzhuzhuyi Renmin Gongheguo. Since you had some involvement with the Chaoxian Minzhuzhuyi Renmin Gongheguo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dahan Minguo listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dahan Minguo. Since you had some involvement with the Dahan Minguo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Egyptian Third Republic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Egyptian Third Republic 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/Egyptian Third Republic 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. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Egyptian Fourth Republic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Egyptian Fourth Republic 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/Egyptian Fourth Republic 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. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Egyptian Fifth Republic for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Egyptian Fifth Republic 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/Egyptian Fifth Republic 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. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Korea listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect West Korea. Since you had some involvement with the West Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 01:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of West Korea

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as West Korea, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Laun chba ller 09:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Korea listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect New Korea. Since you had some involvement with the New Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 00:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East Korea listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect East Korea. Since you had some involvement with the East Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 07:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional colors of Korea listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Traditional colors of Korea. Since you had some involvement with the Traditional colors of Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 07:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koreanism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Koreanism. Since you had some involvement with the Koreanism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 07:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:South Korea listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:South Korea. Since you had some involvement with the Portal:South Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 00:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnabuntu listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cinnabuntu. Since you had some involvement with the Cinnabuntu redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 05:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 Sarcelles riots, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza. 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) 08:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Zhengri listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jin Zhengri. Since you had some involvement with the Jin Zhengri redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The ChampionMan 1234 05:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mal

Template:Mal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Farix (t | c) 22:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul International Film Festival listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Seoul International Film Festival. Since you had some involvement with the Seoul International Film Festival redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Second Assyrian Genocide

The article Second Assyrian Genocide has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article describes a topic that is not widely accepted (referring to the plight of the Assyrians in Iraq as "genocide") and in fact does not mention a single specific instance of Assyrians being killed. It doesn't really contain anything besides references to a couple of news articles.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 46.117.36.181 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Yazidi genocide

The article Yazidi genocide has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article describes a topic that is not widely accepted (referring to the plight of the Yazidis as "genocide" and in fact does not mention a single instance of Yazidis being killed. It doesn't really contain anything besides references to two news articles.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 46.117.36.181 (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Federation listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect American Federation. Since you had some involvement with the American Federation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - The ChampionMan 1234 01:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Our Miracle

The article Our Miracle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not satisfy WP:BK or WP:GNG to establish notability. The article has a single source from the publisher about the existence of a drama CD, which is also the only reference on the equivalent Japanese Wikipedia article. A search of the manga turns up blogs, scanlation websites, or retailers for the manga. Significant coverage in reliable sources would mean non-trivial mentions of the manga and/or a discussion of the manga itself, none of which I found in reliable sources found at WP:ANIME/RS or otherwise.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 十八 03:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamayama listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kamayama. Since you had some involvement with the Kamayama redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - The ChampionMan 1234 00:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Turkmen genocide

Hello, Article editor,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Turkmen genocide should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkmen genocide .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals of North Korea listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Capitals of North Korea. Since you had some involvement with the Capitals of North Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - The ChampionMan 1234 09:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols of Corea listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Symbols of Corea. Since you had some involvement with the Symbols of Corea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - The ChampionMan 1234 04:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moto G (2014 version), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Motorola MOTO. 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) 09:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Richeng listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jin Richeng. Since you had some involvement with the Jin Richeng redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - The ChampionMan 1234 00:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daegu International Film Festival listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Daegu International Film Festival. Since you had some involvement with the Daegu International Film Festival redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - The ChampionMan 1234 00:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really curious to hear why you created this redirect. We can find evidence that the festival even exists! —mako ๛ 22:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Corea listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect West Corea. Since you had some involvement with the West Corea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - The ChampionMan 1234 04:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Corea listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect New Corea. Since you had some involvement with the New Corea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - The ChampionMan 1234 08:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Mandaeans and Shabaks by the Islamic State

Hello. I am not sure if you take requests for articles to create, so feel free to disregard this message. If at all possible, would you mind creating articles on the persecution of Mandaeans and Shabaks by the Islamic State? If so, thank you very much. Solar-Wind (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Languages of Korea listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Languages of Korea. Since you had some involvement with the Languages of Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - The ChampionMan 1234 05:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination

User:Mishaparem nominated 2014-15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine for deletion. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

Hello Article_editor, I am another editor who tried to remove connections between Nazism/genocide and the page Far-Right Politics, but instead had it reverted. I have listed you on the dispute resolution page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Far-right_politics Redflorist (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Chusik hoesa listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chusik hoesa. Since you had some involvement with the Chusik hoesa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jusik hoesa listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jusik hoesa. Since you had some involvement with the Jusik hoesa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Checking the "minor edit" box suppresses notifications for other editors. Adding, removing or altering content is almost never a minor edit. Thanks, and happy editing! Ibadibam (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're still misusing the minor edit checkbox, and using it to hide vandalism and non-neutral editing, at that. Please stop trying to sneak in unconstructive edits in this manner. Ibadibam (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since my previous message, you have marked another non-minor edit "minor". Please stop using the minor edit checkbox for your edits. This is your third notice. Ibadibam (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fourth and final notice before I seek administrator intervention. Adding or removing content, such as this edit to Collaboration with ISIL, is not a minor edit. You appear to mark every one of your edits "minor", when very few of your edits are actually minor. I would like to suggest that you stop using the "minor edit" checkbox entirely. Ibadibam (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of KOI-1686.01

The article KOI-1686.01 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article on an exoplanet which has been disproven. Keeping the articles for disproven objects does more harm than good, as they are misleading to readers. There are also no references in the article that demonstrate any significant coverage, and the article appears to fail both WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Port of Jeju, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeju. 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) 08:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May Fools' Day

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of May Fools' Day, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://wiki.healthhaven.com/April_Fools%27_Day.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of May Fools' Day

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as May Fools' Day, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naperville Academy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Naperville Academy. Since you had some involvement with the Naperville Academy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tavix | Talk 14:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of KOI-1686.01 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KOI-1686.01 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/KOI-1686.01 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. A2soup (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined a technical move request

Hello Article editor. I declined your proposed move of Greek withdrawal from the eurozone. If you want to pursue this, you might want to open a discussion on the talk page. The present content of the article (and the references) doesn't overlap much with your proposed new title, Greek withdrawal from the European Union. If you still believe a move is desirable, you can use the {{Requested move}} template. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Years' War for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Years' War 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/Years' War 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Chattanooga shootings

Don't continue to re-add that to the article without discussion first; the talk page consensus seems to be against it for now. Geogene (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sperance listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sperance. Since you had some involvement with the Sperance redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Stephen W. Gee for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stephen W. Gee 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/Stephen W. Gee 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. Savonneux (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Enemy Combatant Citizenship Revocation Amendment) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Enemy Combatant Citizenship Revocation Amendment, Article editor!

Wikipedia editor Denver20 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

PAGE APPROVED

To reply, leave a comment on Denver20's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Blocked 1 week

I've blocked your account for 1 week for creating numerous sock accounts some which have been blocked for username violations. This will be your only warning. The next block will be much longer. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, I'm Rklawton. I noticed that you made a change to an article, November 2015 Paris attacks, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Rklawton (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2015 Brussels lockdown

The article 2015 Brussels lockdown has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

notability not independent of November 2015 Paris attacks

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Widefox; talk 18:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2015 Brussels lockdown for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 Brussels lockdown 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/2015 Brussels lockdown 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. Widefox; talk 19:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Enemy Combatant Citizenship Revocation Amendment

I have reversed your undoing of my revision to the Enemy Combatant Citizenship Revocation Amendment' article. The changes I made were made for the following reasons:

Removed the US Constitution article series and US Constitution templates because these navboxes are used only with articles on amendments to the US Constitution that have been sent to the states for ratification;
Removed the article from the category Unratified amendments to the United States Constitution because it does not belong there. That category is for amendments sent to the states for consideration but not yet ratified as part of the Constitution (note that it is already, and properly in the category Proposed amendments to the United States Constitution);
Added article to the category United States nationality law, in which it belongs (like the Titles of Nobility Amendment);
Removed the article's lone cited reference, as I could find no mention made of this proposal in it, and because of this, I added an Unreferenced article tag;
Added an US-poli-stub tag in order to connect the article to the United States politics stubs category.

I hope this clarifies things, as my edits were neither capricious nor arbitrary. Best Regards. Drdpw (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xunan listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Xunan. Since you had some involvement with the Xunan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Enemy Combatant Citizenship Revocation Amendment for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Enemy Combatant Citizenship Revocation Amendment 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/Enemy Combatant Citizenship Revocation Amendment 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. Edison (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Muslim supremacy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muslim supremacy 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/Muslim supremacy 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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Muslim supremacy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muslim supremacy 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/Muslim supremacy (2nd nomination) 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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cibuntu listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cibuntu. Since you had some involvement with the Cibuntu redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of High school into Secondary school

Sorry, but the merger of High school into Secondary school, which you originally proposed, seems to be particularly ill-judged. Note that I have just proposed undoing that merger, with a quite comprehensive rationale on Talk:Secondary school#Revert merger of Secondary school and High school. Feel free to join into the discussion. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest 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/2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Article editor. 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 01:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, but don't waste peoples' time

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2016_Donald_Trump_Chicago_rally_protest&diff=next&oldid=710428376 User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany

Please see my response. This article has been the subject of three previous RMs, so any modification of the title should have a discussion. Consider opening up a Requested move and consider supplying a fuller rationale. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modified request to avoid controversy of over-capitalization

Article editor, I modified your technical request to use the normal "sentence style" capitalization that we use for titles: "Yazidi genocide", not "Yazidi Genocide", to keep it from being controversial. See WP:NCCAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making up names

When you find or make up a descriptive name, such as New Caledonian barrier reef, don't cap it as New Caledonian Barrier Reef. And when you move a proper name that's actually in wide use, like Belize Barrier Reef, you should be sure to have an even more commonly term to move to, not a seldom-used one. These are more important than making things more "parallel" or whatever is driving you. And if you're concerned, use an RM discussion, not a technical request.

I'd appreciate a reply or some kind of acknowledgement here or at my talk page. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You got the technical moves you requested, which you seen to not remember because you chose carelessly. I fixed them already. Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest

Can you clean up the quoting issue? I want the article promoted to DYK. --George Ho (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inventing proper names, or over-capitalizing descriptive names

Note that per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, we reserve caps for proper names. Please do not propose caps "for harmonization" and such. Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Revolution of 2009 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Iranian Revolution of 2009. Since you had some involvement with the Iranian Revolution of 2009 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mhhossein (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to your editing restrictions

Hello Article editor. Your request for renaming Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) to Russo-Ukrainian war caused quite a stir today. Please do not evade your #Agreed editing restrictions by requesting "uncontroversial" moves on evidently controversial subjects; this action put another editor Peter_SamFan in trouble as he tried to help you in good faith. Thanks for contributing constructively in the future. — JFG ^talk 18:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, how about you just don't use technical move requests in general? Your "technical" move request on June 2013 Egyptian protests also had to be reverted with much wasting of time. There's no shame in having a different opinion than others, but there is in circumventing the normal discussion process to get your way. SnowFire (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Our Miracle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Our Miracle 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/Our Miracle 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.--十八 23:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits marked "minor"

Your contribs shows that all your edits are marked "minor" (see the m?), even though you have been warned about this before, and many of your edits are substantial and sometimes controversial. Please fix this. If it's happening automatically due to some preference setting or something, fix it or ask here for help. If you're clicking it manually, please stop. If you keep this up, you will be reported at WP:AN/I so that an admin can force a stop to it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have filed an incident report about you at WP:AN/I#Article editor marks all edits minor and ignores talk. Dicklyon (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. --Article editor (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Article editor: You have been asked politely to fix a problem. I am an admin, and I want to point out that you have not acted collegially by simply ignoring Dicklyon's request. It was also uncivil of you to respond with a put-down when notified of the ANI discussion.
Please do engage with the discussion at WP:ANI. I'm sure that this can all be sorted out of you discuss it ... but ignoring the ANI discussion will not be helpful to you.
Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made four warnings for Article editor on this subject (see above section #March 2015). At this point I suggest that not using minor edits be part of the unblock conditions. Ibadibam (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marking all edits as minor

I removed your script that marks all edits as minor as you seem to be abusing it. You should only mark edits as "minor" if they do not make a change that is significant or changes the meaning. Otherwise, it is considered disruption and will earn you a block. Do not restore the script. You need to also make sure you don't mark edits as minor unless they are minor, such as spelling corrections or the like. Changing numbers, adding citations and the like are not minor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Deisisification

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 Deisisification requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

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 "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. RGloucester — ☎ 18:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article as the phrase itself wasn't used in the articles and the title appears to be wholly invented by you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeatedly breaching your unblock conditions by not discussing and gaining consensus for page moves. You may not use WP:RM/Technical moves, e.g. for the Syrian Civil War move. You will be unblocked only when you acknowledge this.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Fences&Windows 11:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked for a specific issue, but a reviewing admin should check the previous issues on this talk page and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Article editor marks all edits minor and ignores talk. Fences&Windows 16:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Article editor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Move from Syrian Civil War was not controversial per WP:NCCAPS and precedent by User:Dicklyon. I believe using Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests in good faith is a legitimate way of requesting a page move for uncontroversial moves, as it requires oversight by the moving admin, and thus did not violate any conditions. Article editor (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are explicitly required to "discuss and gain consensus for all pages moves". Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests does not include discussions and thus is not a venue available to you. And if you cannot tell something like this request might be controversial, you have just confirmed that the restriction from 2013 still is necessary. Huon (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I might have proposed that downcasing as uncontroversial myself, if I had not noticed the previous RM discussion. But I'm not under the same editing restriction agreement that you are, AE, and your history of lots of upcasing and downcasing "by analogy" without looking at the facts of the cases is indeed quite disruptive. Try reading your talk page. And look at what the blocking editor suggested as to how to get unblocked; you appear to have done the opposite. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Türkiye Respublikasi listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Türkiye Respublikasi. Since you had some involvement with the Türkiye Respublikasi redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Article editor. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Korea listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:South Korea. Since you had some involvement with the Template:South Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North Korea listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:North Korea. Since you had some involvement with the Template:North Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shiist listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shiist. Since you had some involvement with the Shiist redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boku Kinkei listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Boku Kinkei. Since you had some involvement with the Boku Kinkei redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Po Jinhui listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Po Jinhui. Since you had some involvement with the Po Jinhui redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Po Qinhui listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Po Qinhui. Since you had some involvement with the Po Qinhui redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoku Kinkei listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hoku Kinkei. Since you had some involvement with the Hoku Kinkei redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haku Kinkei listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Haku Kinkei. Since you had some involvement with the Haku Kinkei redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coreanist listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Coreanist. Since you had some involvement with the Coreanist redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coreanic listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Coreanic. Since you had some involvement with the Coreanic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidential residences has been nominated for discussion

Category:Presidential residences, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. p b p 16:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2010 Rinkeby riots

The article 2010 Rinkeby riots has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A minor event that lacks encyclopedic relevance or long-term societal impact. Significant RS coverage not found. WP:NOTNEWS applies.

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2010 Rinkeby riots for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2010 Rinkeby riots 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/2010 Rinkeby riots 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. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Istiwāʼīyah listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Al-Istiwāʼīyah. Since you had some involvement with the Al-Istiwāʼīyah redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Istiwāʼīyah listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Istiwāʼīyah. Since you had some involvement with the Istiwāʼīyah redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Istiwāʾīyah listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Istiwāʾīyah. Since you had some involvement with the Istiwāʾīyah redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Istiwāʼīyyah listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Al-Istiwāʼīyyah. Since you had some involvement with the Al-Istiwāʼīyyah redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Istiwāʾīyyah listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Al-Istiwāʾīyyah. Since you had some involvement with the Al-Istiwāʾīyyah redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Istiwāʼīyyah listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Istiwāʼīyyah. Since you had some involvement with the Istiwāʼīyyah redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Istiwāʾīyyah listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Istiwāʾīyyah. Since you had some involvement with the Istiwāʾīyyah redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Istiwaiyah listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Al-Istiwaiyah. Since you had some involvement with the Al-Istiwaiyah redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Istiwaiyah listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Istiwaiyah. Since you had some involvement with the Istiwaiyah redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Istiwaiyyah listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Al-Istiwaiyyah. Since you had some involvement with the Al-Istiwaiyyah redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Istiwaiyyah listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Istiwaiyyah. Since you had some involvement with the Istiwaiyyah redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaijing listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kaijing. Since you had some involvement with the Kaijing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Korea listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chinese Korea. Since you had some involvement with the Chinese Korea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duopotamia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Duopotamia. Since you had some involvement with the Duopotamia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dipotamia listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dipotamia. Since you had some involvement with the Dipotamia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sun d listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sun d. Since you had some involvement with the Sun d redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thegreatluigi (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Republicanism in Egypt

Template:Republicanism in Egypt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:University of Chicago

Portal:University of Chicago, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/University portals and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:University of Chicago during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Seoul

Portal:Seoul, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Seoul and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Seoul during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sinensis listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sinensis. Since you had some involvement with the Sinensis redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Heartfu(e)l" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Heartfu(e)l. Since you had some involvement with the Heartfu(e)l redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Richhoncho (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Laurentium" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Laurentium. Since you had some involvement with the Laurentium redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Kanisa" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kanisa. Since you had some involvement with the Kanisa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedius" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedius. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedius redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipaedius" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipaedius. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipaedius redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Republican Corea" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Republican Corea. Since you had some involvement with the Republican Corea redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh 03:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Hoku Shoki" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hoku Shoki. Since you had some involvement with the Hoku Shoki redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hongapore

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Hongapore requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "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 deleted 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. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Shinkan" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Shinkan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 20#Shinkan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"War against" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect War against and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 2#War against until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 21:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Jin Zhengri" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jin Zhengri and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 25#Jin Zhengri until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Egyptian First Republic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Egyptian First Republic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 6#Egyptian First Republic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Weishan International Airport" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Weishan International Airport and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#Weishan International Airport until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Weishan Airport" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Weishan Airport and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 30#Weishan Airport until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Li Mingbo" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Li Mingbo has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 10 § Li Mingbo until a consensus is reached. 747pilot (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of University of Chicago Police Department

The article University of Chicago Police Department has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unnecceseary page, the redirected topic doesnt even mention police

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Sfaraddi" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sfaraddi has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 25 § Sfaraddi until a consensus is reached. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]