User talk:TexasAndroid

This user may have left Wikipedia. TexasAndroid has not edited Wikipedia since 21 June 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

This page already in the Portuguese and Spanish versions of Wikipedia and I don't believe that they viole the rules and terms of the site!

Saviochristi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archives	2005 First half, 2006 Second half, 2006 First half, 2007 July - Aug, 2007 Sep - Dec, 2007 Jan - May, 2008 May - Dec, 2008 Jan - May, 2009 June - Dec, 2009 Jan - June, 2010 July 2010 - Dec 2011 First half, 2012 Second half, 2012 2013 2014 Current

I notice that you deleted this page in October 2014, and I was wondering what your reasoning was? I am currently drafting a page for Xenia Wickett and wanted to see whether it was the same individual. Thanks, Usprogramme (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there are various lists with 'redlinked entries' for urban and rural districts, which I would like to provide details for (including dates, predecessor and successor bodies, and external links), what would be the best way of proceeding to avoid duplication of work? Separate pages have already been created in some cases - but there is equally a case for subentries on other pages. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you mind helping me restore the listing for Life Sketches: Piano Music of Nils Vigeland? I would like have it up, and to add the references that were missing. I appreciate your help, thank-you! Pmacintern (talk) (15:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

It was a WP:PROD deletion, and it only takes one protest to invalidate such a deletion. I'm taking your request to be such a protest, and have restored the page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have noticed that you have deleted an article titled "Delta Psi Delta (Canada)" in September of 2014. I would like to rewrite an article about this sorority as I am a current executive member of the Gamma chapter located in Toronto, Canada. Prior to writing the article, I wanted to ask you what was the reason behind the deletion of the previous article?

Thank you in advance.

Sanijz (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Sanijz[reply]

For the one I specifically deleted, it had no content beyond a repetition of the title. Your version yesterday was deleted for being overly promotional. But your biggest hurdle is Wikipedia's concept of Notability. Any topic on the project must meet the Notability requirements in order to have a page. And, in general, individual chapters of fraternities/sororities are not considered to be separately notable. There are exceptions, but you have to be ready to demonstrate that your chapter meets the requirements. WP:NOTE and WP:ORG are good pages to read on such notability requirements. But in general you need to be able to provide multiple sources that demonstrate notability. And for a source to do so it needs to meet three criteria. 1) it needs to be reliable, 2) it needs to be independent, and 3) it needs to be non-trivial.

A blog is not reliable. A campus newspaper might or might not be.

A press release is not independent. Anything generated by the actions of your organization is not really independent.

A mention in a list is trivial. A casual mention in an article on a different topic is trivial.

The best would be a few independently written articles, in major news outlet, directly covering your chapter. And that's your chapter, *not* the national organization, which *is* likely notable. But notability is not inherited. Your chapter has to show that it is notable separately from the national organization. And, in general, that's not easy to do, thus the assumption that local chapters are not notable. Unless it can be shown otherwise on a case by case basis.

WP:FRAT might be a place to ask for assistance, but they will likely tell you much the same things. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I became aware of User:Anomie/linkclassifier and find it very useful. Best, -- Sam ^Sing! 01:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll give it a look. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do, it saves precious seconds on ShortPages but more so enables you to check own edits and articles for links to DAB pages. ... Would you feel comfortable granting me Wikipedia:Autopatrolled, I believe I just pass the bar? -- Sam ^Sing! 16:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. -- Sam ^Sing! 21:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please would you consider unprotecting Howrse? My reason is that I would like to accept the AfC submission Draft:Howrse, which seems to have established the topic's notability, and even manages to be somewhat neutral. Thanks! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. Not sure that the new draft would pass AFD, but I would say it definitely passes CSD:A7. The page was originally salted for repeated A7 recreations. So go ahead and put that draft into place, and we'll see if anyone feels that it's worthy of starting an AFD discussion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mate, I have created a new article on Saichiro Misumi, a page which you have deleted recently. Misumi is a winner of Padma Bhushan, the third highest Indian civilian award, holds the post of advisor to the Japan-India Association and, as such, I guess is notable. Please correct me if I am wrong.--jojo@nthony (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The version I deleted consisted of "Aide of Netaji... Lives in Japan Padma Bhusan-2015". That is all. That was IMHO an obvious A7 deletion. The version you created gives much more detail, and at the *least* appears to pass the A7 deletion level. Whether or not it would survive a full AFD discussion is another matter. But I'm not inclined to start such a discussion on it. So, unless someone else decides to do so, I would say that it's good for now. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mate, I just wanted to intimate you on this. Hopefully someone else will develop the article to a higher level to successfully withstand an AFD discussion. Padma Bhushan, the third highest Indian civilian award, may give it credence to hold on as I believe the article has significance from an Indian perspective. Thanks for the quick revert and happy wikilife!! --jojo@nthony (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I request to restore that page?, as the page was wrongly merged into S.P.A.L. 2013. Matthew_hk tc 04:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More exactly moved History of S.P.A.L. 2013 (and its page history) to original namespace, recreate the article for the folded club. Matthew_hk tc 04:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite confused on what you are wanting. If you are wanting some sort of history split/unmerge, you'll need to ask someone else. I've never really done that. There is no useful history at the A.C. Giacomense location. At History of S.P.A.L. 2013 there is a good bit of deleted history. It was deleted by PROD back in Nov 2014. That could easily be undeleted, as it only requires one protest to invalidate a PROD deletion. I could do that, but I would also feel obligated to inform the deleting admin and the person who originally listed it for PROD, in case they wanted to start up a fuller deletion discussion. But beyond that, I'm not really sure what you are wanting from me. If you want that PROD deletion undone, just say so. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

undone a prod, and fix the most complicated redirect issue bu myself. Matthew_hk tc 19:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject I'm unsure why History of SPAL was restored, seeing as, yes it was deleted, but only after being merged with SPAL 2013 history section. I'm not sure what restoring an unnecessary fork is meant to achieve Abcmaxx (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot answer that. My role in this is purely technical. Matthew_hk will need to explain his reasoning. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk, you asked "Did anyone state a meaningful reason for restoring it?" But that's part of the key to PROD deletion. You do not need a particularly meaningful reason, either for deletion or for opposition. Of course, if the deletion reason is totally bogus, *someone* is likely to oppose, even if it's only the admin who eventually looks at it for pressing the deletion button. For more deliberative deletions, which actually have enforced results, you'll need a full deletion debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I was just wondering seeing as it was identical to the history section of the club article, I did find it a bit strange. I think Mathew_hk wanted to create AC Giacomense as opposed actually restore the article, it all seems to be cleared up now. Thanks for your help Abcmaxx (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why has my article been deleted? Is it lost? Hope not as it involved much work! Weglinde (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have searched high and low but article seems to have disappeared. Whilst I try to find reason for deletion is there not someway of restoring the article if only to my sandbox? Weglinde (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TexasAndroid. I am familiar with Weglinde's work on calvaries in Brittany as I recently edited Calvary at Kergrist-Moëlou. I was therefore surprised to see you had deleted The calvary of Guéhenno without explanation. I find it even stranger that I can find no record of it in your contributions although when I tried to recreate the article there was a message confirming that you had indeed deleted it. Although the article has some shortcomings (unusual title, no lead, etc.), it has certainly been well researched. With a few relatively minor editing changes it could certainly be brought up to standard. Calvaries are an important aspect of the culture and religious history of Brittany and deserve to be included in the encyclopaedia. Please restore it and I will help out with improvements. (Please ping me in your reply.)--Ipigott (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is on the deletion notice. The article's original creator blanked the article. This action is generally assumed to be an indication that the original author not longer wants the article to be on the project. Speedy deletion criteria G7 allows for the deletion of such blanked articles without needing to bother the author. Occasionally it turns out that blanking is unintentional. Or that something else was intended. The protests above by the article's author make it clear that, in the current case, he did not actually want the article gone. So I have restored it, and unblanked it. You can see the blanking action here.

As for it not being in my contribution list, admin actions do not appear in the normal contributions list. There are other logs of the admin actions of a given admin. My deletion actions can be found here, though I'm not sure if non-admins can see that log. There are other logs for other admin actions, like protection changes or blocking actions. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague, why discuss the obvious? As the redirect IS totally wrong, the only thing you can do with it is to delete it. I have nevertheless done as you'd suggested. Regards--Feťour (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because CSD, Speedy Deletion, has very narrow requirements. It is supposed to be used for very specific reasons, and only those specific reasons. Reasons that, over time, the project has decided do not need debate. Or they are so urgent that the urgency overrides the need for debate. Attack pages is a good example of the latter.

But your issue is outside these narrow reasons, and has no real urgency to it. The redirect has been there for 5 years. Another week or so will not cause any further harm. It may seem obvious to you that it needs to be deleted, but there may be something else going on that you are unaware of. (Or it may turn out exactly as you expect it to turn out.) The people who frequent RFD tend to know a lot about Wikipedia redirects. They know what is and what is not a good redirect. If there's some wrinkle to the situation that you are unaware of, the debate will give it time for it to come out. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thorough explanation, colleague.--Feťour (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently you deleted this page [1]

the earlier sock puppet investigation of that individual Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sadman Sakibzz/Archive identified User:Andy_Khan who created these pages [2] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I was aware that he was blocked for that. I started this looking at his more recent sock, and then became aware of this slightly older sock. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

on second glance many of the creations are redirects based on translation spelling variants and are probably OK to keep. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's an old debate on the merits of G5 deletion. In theory, the point of G5 is that, if the user is blocked, they should not be editing **at all**, and thus every single edit from them, and especially all new pages, are unwelcome. But then there's the side of the argument that, do we delete useful things just because they are created by a banned user? I don't have a strong opinion either way, and I normally avoid G5. I've just stumbled into the middle of this current one, it seems. I'll stop deleting his redirects under G5, then, but for now I'll leave deleted the ones I already deleted. No opposition to any other admin who wants to restore those others. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted it while I was adding to it! For heavens sake, watch the time stamps, please....auntieruth (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• work in progress. I hope it now has sufficient content. auntieruth (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the Lake Poinsett (Florida) move and merge. I really appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs)

You're welcome. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fast speedy. I do agree with the title when it comes to Wikipedia, though, nothing is obvious. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided a huge reason for deletion, I think that it would be declined, but you can try Afd. Delibzr (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In many ways my PROD request is procedural. It's not really me that wants it gone, but the (likely) article's subject. I've done this plenty of times before, when such a deletion really does not meet the requirements for speedy deletion. Put it up for PROD, with a reason pointing to the subject and/or author wanting it gone. That said, as it's not really me wanting it gone, I don't really have any policy-based arguments to put forward for it's deletion. AFD would require such. For now, we'll see if the PROD goes through. If it does not, then it's likely up to the article's subject/author to file for AFD, not me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Is this edit okay? I am not sure I know what is going on.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I often use as a source of things to work on something called the Short Pages report. It reports the shortest pages on the project. The stuff that you removed is added to add length to pages, and thus shove them much further down the report, allowing other things to become more visible. However, properly formed redirects do not show up on the report in the first place, so that extra hidden stuff is meaningless on them.

But that all said, it was added back in October, as a point in time when the page was a Deletion Review. Having the DR template makes the page not a properly formed redirect any more, so while the page was at DR, it was showing up on the Short Pages report, and thus needed that template to shove it way down the report. Normally, when a page comes out of DR and is not re-deleted, it gets reverted back to before the DR template was added, which also removes the hidden comments. In this specific case, for some reason, this was not done, and the hidden comments remained on the now properly formatted redirect, where they were basically meaningless.

So ultimately, your removing them does no harm, since they were meaningless in this specific case. I would request that the templates not be removed in most other cases, because in those cases they are serving a very important purpose in helping make the Short Pages report more useful. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The stuff that you removed [...] So ultimately, your removing them [...] "

I didn't do anything. If you look more closely, the remover is Sonic N800.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I remember you "undeleted" an article once, will you mind doing me a favour and doing the same for Scarborough Town F.C. please? Maybe move it somewhere other than mainspace? I would be very grateful Abcmaxx (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been placed at User:Abcmaxx/Scarborough Town F.C.. I strongly suggest you read the AFD that deleted it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarborough Town F.C., and be prepared to remedy the problems that got it deleted in the first place. Also, since it was deleted by AFD, I would strongly suggest that you do not at any point move it back to article space yourself. When you think that it is ready, file at WP:DRV to have the new version looked over. If you do not get a good result from DRV first, your article will almost certainly be re-deleted shortly after you move it back to article space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I know why it was deleted, in fact the "delete-happy squad" are pretty keen on it deleting as it's been deleted twice and restored twice already few years ago. But no worries I shall keep it there for a while. One more question though, any idea what happened to the club crest and talk page or are they lost forever? Abcmaxx (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The crest was deleted from Commons as a copyvio. I don't know the details. But you can see the edit to the page that removed the link.

The talk page is sitting at it's normal spot, deleted. Nothing is ever truly deleted and permanently removed on the project, it's really more a matter of different levels of hiding from users. They can always be brought back by a user with the proper abilities, like I did for you with the page itself. As for the talk page, we don't normally userify talk pages. If, down the road, you get the page restored, then the talk can be undeleted easily enough. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you deleted the page "Suck a dick deb". Did you find this topic offensive? My apologies for taking your time. Let me know. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshendi (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid, can you please employ your tool to wipe the IP of this user in those two edits? Thanks, 207.93.13.145 (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've left the edits themselves visible, but only admins should now be able to see the IP. That should let you re-make the edits under your proper ID, without making it obvious what your IP is. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had already done it and I've also emailed Oversight for a more permanent solution. You may notice that the edit has already been redone by the accidentally logged-out editor. Bencherlite^Talk 19:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Actually, it wasn't me: I'm just an anonymous troll. :) 207.93.13.145 (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently deleted Lee mcconville article. For some reason, the user had placed the article in the Talk space, and I was moving it to the article space when you deleted the page, as the person is significant according to WP:FOOTY. I've therefore recreated the page. I was just notifying you so you didn't think it was odd that someone created an article just a few seconds after it was deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I saw that. But given the improper capitalization, I assumed that it was a copy of the article from the proper location, instead of being the only copy of the article. Obviously I assumed wrong. I've moved it to the proper location now. Thanks for the notice. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It won't let me move User:Zigzig20s/Bill Laurie to Bill Laurie, because I started the page in my userpage and the redirect blocks it. I have requested a move but so far, so response. I am tempted to simply copy and paste it, and then get this userpage deleted. Thoughts?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ever do copy/paste moves on the project. For license/copyright reasons, it is extremely important that the page history remains properly with the page. C&P move break this chain, and require an admin to clean things up.

That said, I've made the move for you. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, this is why I was waiting.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I followed a red link from Emma Cons - and she does seem to be as significant as some of the other 'short article biographies' (and note her niece and namesake, Ethel Lilian Voynich.

Suggestion - have a family section on George Everest (see [3]) and include the basic details (including the two books) there. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not rushing to file an AFD against that page. It's just a note that her Notability is not shown with what is currently given on the page. There's a regular saying around here that "Notability is not inherited". It means that each article on each person needs to show why that person specifically meets the project's notability criteria. If this is not shown, the the page could very easily be put to a deletion discussion. Just because I'm not planning to do so, does not mean that the page is particularly safe. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With several mentions in various books, and the Morley College/Emma Cons links she is more notable than her siblings. If you think 'among George Everest's children (link to list above), the most notable was Ethel Everest (dates, and book references from the article as is)' is more appropriate, move it and 're-point' the Cons link.

Some 'people, events, books and other topics' are notable enough to justify an article; some are 'bare mentions' others are 'all over the place enough to generate an article and then fade into insignificance' and some fall into the 'WP debatable notability valley' (until someone writes the best-selling book on the subject) - there is a case for some mention on WP but the argument is over what it should be, and EE falls into this last group. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2015 has already created the official one, it's relating to #redicret for a while after Miss Universe Organization announced the official date and venue. That is why I removed the page. Thank You.

Hi TexasAndroid,

On 19:04, 20 March 2015 you deleted Thomas Hazelrigg an article I started only 20 minutes earlier. Your edit summary says that the reason for the deletion was (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person).

Since no one notified me of this pending deletion I did not get a chance to contest it. Can you please let me know who nominated this article for deletion, and how can the wording be changed so that it passes A7? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you offer, I would appreciate a response on my talkpage. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much ,TexaxAndroid, for your help in trying to have my article restored. I was able to revert it after that; however, it was deleted again by the same Administrator. Meanwhile, similar articles by users have not been deleted. Is there an Administrator who handles these inconsistencies, which are unfair. Thanks, again, for the good you did for me.

                                                    --Gladys Haiti Alley 

Gladys Haiti Alley (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "similar articles" argument is not one that carries much weight around here. WP:OTHERSTUFF details the reasons that is often a non-winning argument.

Your article has not been fully deleted, but rather it has been moved to your user space, at User:Gladys Haiti Alley/Susan Postal, where you can work on it without immediate threat of deletion. As for what you need to do to get past the current issues, you'll really need to talk to User:Jac16888 about that. They are the one who has shown issue with your article, so they are the one who can best explain their issues. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify, my question to you was asking is there an administrator who handles disputes about article deletions, not asking you to mediate; was not my intention to expect you to mediate since clearly that's not your role. Clearly, I misunderstood what you had done to my page, thinking you had restored my article. I didn't mean to create an awkward situation by giving a reward. Can you please advise how to permanently delete my wikipedia account or am I not allowed to remove my wikipedia footprint? Thank you again. Gladys Haiti Alley (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single admin, but there is a process for disputing any sort of deletion action. WP:DRV, Deletion Review. Anyone, admin or not, can contribute to a DRV debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for deleting an account, there is no way to do it. If you want to abandon it, you can simply stop using it. If you want to make it so that noone, even yourself, can ever use it again, remove any associated Email address in the option, and reset your password to something totally random. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for supporting meaningful hard work on Wikipedia. I deeply appreciate the kindness you showed my article because I worked tirelessly to provide it to Wikipedia. I remain hopeful because of you that the article will eventually become part of Wikipedia to serve a purpose.... Gladys Haiti Alley (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TexasAndriod! I am very new to Wikiapedia and I'm still sruggling a tad. I tried to make an article about my choir NJYC but I've notised its been deleted. I know I didn't have a lot of info at all but I couldn't figure out how to just make it private so it went public. Is there anyway for only me to see it when its still a work in progress or a way to get it back? Maybe not i'm not sure. Sorry about all of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigereye77 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've place it at User:Tigereye77/NJYC, which should allow you to work on it without threat of immediate deletion. Please read WP:ORG. One of your first concerns should be showing that your organization meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. We get articles on all sort of things, but we have fairly strict requirements for what is allowed to remain. I suspect you'll have a hard time finding the needed sources, but I've been shown to be wrong plenty of times before. But my point is that, if you cannot show that your organization is notable, then your time spent developing an article may be a waste, if the article is likely to be deleted soon after you move it back to article space.

The key to notability is being able to provide sources that show the notability. And for a source to show notability it needs to meet three factors. It must be Reliable, Independent, and Non-trivial. A blog is not reliable. A press release, or anything triggered by promotional actions of the organization is not independent. And a brief mention in a list or an article on a different topic is a trivial mention. A full article in a reliable press organization,specifically about the organization is the kind of source that is needed. If such sources do not exist about your organization, then you may very well be wasting your time. Better to find that out sooner rather than after you have invested that time. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just a heads up. You have just done a clean-up edit on this new article. I have tagged it G5 as it was created by the indef blocked Amanharleen. His SPI was only just closed and archived today, so I have advised the closing admin about it. See:- this talk page. Richard Harvey (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I put the article Eddie Ng under BLP prod seeing that the person keeps on reverting the redirect-was not sure what else to do to be honest. Wgolf (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they did pretty close to what I asked them to do, but not really in the proper location. I was saying that the disambiguation was inappropriate as long as there was only one article for the name. They created the second article, but did it in the base location, over the redirect/disambig. I've now split the history for the new article over to the name that had been given in the disambig, and restored the disambiguation itself. For now. For the moment we have two articles, and thus the disambiguation becomes appropriate. That said, your BLPPROD is still in play on the new article, which I have also now flagged for lack of any real indication of notability. If these issues are not resolved by the IP, the article will likely end up deleted in a week or so, and the disambig could then be reverted to a redirect once again. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TexasAndroid,

On 13:19, 2 April 2015 you deleted the article on StartupBus under G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page (TW). I just started out on Wikipedia, may i know the reason for the deletion of the article and talk page? and any improvements that I am able to make. Currently, on StartupBus's talk page, I have added a banner and relevant references on the article.

You may contact me at my talk page, Nbsntugrp4 (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your guidance.

Okay, you seem to want to defend the indefensible. KERRY James is an actor, listed on imdb.com. Yet you want to support a redirect that ignores this, based on the idea that it helps those to stupid to correctly type the name of their musical hero? REALLY? Also, how would anyone create a article on the actor if the redirect is active? If you try searching for the Canadian actor you get the rap artist. In who's mind is this acceptable? Finally, since you were made aware of the problem, and you seem to know how to fix it, why be troublesome by reverting the redirect edit instead of fixing the problem? I fix typos, I don't know, or care to learn how to alter the universe of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CubBC (talk • contribs)

First, you were simply blanking the redirect. Blank pages cause problems on the project.

Second, I was not in any way saying that the redirect should or should not exist. I was simply saying that it should not be left blank.

Third, you say you do not know how to do things on Wikipedia. But if you want something to happen, and you do not want to cause problems for the project, then you really need to know. And I linked twice to the instructions you needed to follow. You did not even really need to "learn" anything, just know enough to read and follow directions.

Fourth, you have given no indication that your Kerry is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Only people who meet the notability requirements get to have articles here, and just being an actor is not enough. Until/unless he has an article, the fact that he exists has no bearing on whether Wikipedia has a redirect, a disambiguation, or an article at that location.

Fifth, a quick scan shows that there are actually already two other articles that use that name, at least partially, in addition to the current redirect target, so a disambiguation appears to actually be the better thing to be there. Now, if/when you or someone else decides to try writing an article on your Canadian actor, it can go somewhere like Kerry James (actor), and that new page could be added to the disambiguation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can point me in the right direction for how to accomplish what I'm trying to do. I removed the redirect because I thought that was what was preventing me from moving 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division page, though I realize now that wasn't the issue. Basically there were four brigades, each with their own entries. The Army got rid of the one that previously had the page for 3rd Brigade, and then renamed the 4th Brigade "3rd Brigade." So how I do I go about merging the pages? JCO312 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found the Wikipedia article on merging, so hopefully I've done it right. Thanks! JCO312 (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other page was removed (though I don't think either of us are surprised) Wgolf (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverter of vandalism, and wiki-link cleaner. (I'm no great author of Wiki pages, but I'm good at cleaning up other people's messes. :))

I guess you ego is as big as the State of Texas, if not larger. In my opinion, your action in deleting my posting Justo Mendez Cabrera was very inconsiderate. As I posted, it is a WORK IN PROGRESS ..... you did not even waited 2 hours to delete it... I guess this isn your game....How can I start populating with data if I get deleted, while gathering data.....and what makes you such an expert in vndalism.... I think that you are the vandal....and guess what? Same as you, I may become a Reverter of Vandalism, based on my criteria (same as you use yours) and delete all your postings, for I consider you un-trustworthy and a vandal, and as such, I am entitled to it.....How do you like that......based on postings by other contributors, you seem to have a problem......maybe the Wkipedia administration should look into it?

Note....obviously, I am not deleting any of your postings, for I will not lower myself to your sorry low life level....but how does it feel?

BE RESPECTFUL....!

YOUR RESPONSE: "If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere."

Now you are resorting to threats.... Wow!!!! I guess IU hit a nerve here......try getting some propfessional help.....! and yes you can reply here or anywhere you wish...it really does not matter to anyone but you.....remember..Actions and Consequences.... Have a Great AY:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewiz menz (talk • contribs)

Wow. Umm... Where to start? Maybe at the end. That message about where I would replay has been on my page for many years. It's automated to appear at the bottom of my talk page at all times. It's not a threat to anyone. It simply means that I prefer to keep conversations in one place, and unless someone asks me to do otherwise, I'll consider that place to be here on my own talk page. Some people on the project carry on conversations that ping pong back and forth between both people's talk pages. I prefer not to do that. That's all that is meant by that.

Ok. On your page, we do not generally allow "Under Construction/work in progress" type pages in the main article space. Far too easy for them to get left untouched for extended periods of time. Articles need to have useful content when they are in the main article space, or they are subject to deletion. If you want time to develop an article before that point, there are several options. WP:AFC, user space, and/or draft article space. If you would like me to restore what you had and place it in one of these working areas, just say so. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I went ahead and did it for you. The article is now at Draft:Justo Mendez Cabrera. This will give you the space to get it developed without it being subject to immediate deletion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISO-Convener (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)===Trusted Storage Specification Update reversed==== I am the ISO convener for ISO 18759 Trusted WORM specification under the authority of ISO TC/171 and am also the chairman of ANSI/AIIM C21 Advanced Data Storage. We spent quite a bit of time correcting and updating the page for "trusted storage specification" or "Trusted WORM". ”. It appears that you deleted this update. Please contact me directly at user:iso-convener to let us know what you need changed so that you don't keep erasing work performed by the ISO working committees.[reply]

Please do not delete this page and replace with the incorrect information previously on the site that was used as a stub.

Thank you, Robert Blatt — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISO-Convener (talk • contribs) 15:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC) ISO-Convener (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)ISO TC/171 SC1/WG8 Convener[reply]

99.105.105.247 (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)I just returned from the ISO meetings and confirmed that the incorrect information on the BSI page has been deleted. The ISO Database has been updated and will show me as the project editor. Please re-run the duplication detector and when you see the conflict has been resolved, release the page so that I can resume editing and formatting.[reply]

Thank you 99.105.105.247 (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but nothing has been been resolved. Nothing has changed about the fact that the text was first published elsewhere, on a copyrighted page, before it was placed here. That is what created the copyright conflict, and deletion elsewhere does not change that it was first published there.

There's also the fact that Wikipedia is not the place for publishing the specification itself. The text that was there is pretty much inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Rather than trying to publish the specification here, you would be better off writing up new text about the specification. Maybe revert back to the older version. That was a stub, yes, but it was an encyclopedic description, not a pure republishing of the specification itself. If we revert back, you can then fix any errors in the older text, and maybe expand it a bit. Think of your audience. The specification needs technical details. And encyclopedia page about the specification needs very few of those. Maybe a sentence or two about why it is different from other specifications. What makes this one separately notable? Aim the text at people who have no idea what the specification is about, and just want a basic understanding of what it is, without being loaded down with the technical details. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the above page requires urgent attention. Can you protect it? -KH-1 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a couple of days.... - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please configured pending changes settings (Pending-change protected) for this article for prevent vandalism by IP DoDung2001 (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else got to it this morning, and gave is a several month semi-protection. That should serve, and there's not much point in my adding pending-change protection on top of that. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 19:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was wondering, I wanted to create the Wikipedia page for Something Rotten! (the musical on Broadway) and it seems that you have deleted the page when it was created by someone else. Is there a reason I should not create it? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamFlyWikipedia (talk • contribs) 16:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ibottisti created a new version a few days ago. Is this request now moot? - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Do you think you can restore Alain Ngamayama page please, I've found a load of national articles about him, and he HAS played in a fully professional league Abcmaxx (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted at a full deletion debate. You're going to need to get that overturned at WP:DRV before it can be recreated. And for that to have a chance of happening, you really need a draft version that shows the references you intend to use to show notability. So I'm not gonna be able to undelete it directly for you, but I can help you along the way. I can restore it for you and move it to your user space or to Draft space where you can work on it without it being under threat of immediate deletion again. Then, when you think you have it back up to good shape, you can file for a deletion review to get permission for the draft to be returned to article space. Does that sounds workable to you? - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, thank you. And it was deleted twice now, which means that clearly not everyone wanted to be deleted, as it keeps getting re-created, as well it's presence on several other language brother Wikipedias. The man is a well known player in the country, so having an article on the Wealdstone Raider but not him seems baffling to me. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can now be found at Draft:Alain Ngamayama. Feel free to work on it there, and get it up to the point where it meets notability requirements. Then file a WP:DRV request to overturn the previous AFD, citing your revised Draft article as your reason for wanting the old AFD overturned. The outcome of the DRV will either result in it being deleted again, or moved back into article space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I read your reason for proposing the page for deletion. But I found one of your statement vague and could you name the another page. I just wanted to know if there is another page to it. If not I was planning to revert your proposals. 'Primary author says they have moved the information to other pages, and wants this one gone.' No hard feeling just asking. Cheers!!! Sammanhumagain^t@lk 09:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was based on the page author's edit comments here. They said "Information merged into individual season pages". So it's those individual season pages that I presume are the "other pages" involved. I did not dig through the author's history to figure out which specific pages are the places that they merged the data to. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the above page, which I created. The reason was "One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page." I did not request deletion & would like the article restored. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did by blanking the page, with an edit summary of "Delete Althea Warren" here. That said, it's not a huge deal. G7 is one of the easiest deletions to get reversed. The author just has to say did not, or do not now, want it gone. You said that, so it is back. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I thought I was blanking my sandbox page. Your pal, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i just want to know why have you deleted those pages about RB Leipzig seasons ? You deleted them a couple of months ago but i'm just curious about the reason Jallouljalloul (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness that was a while back. Digging through the history, the ones I deleted were only deleted because they were redirects to pages that had been separately deleted. As for the other pages, a bit of digging brought up this deletion debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was a long time ago. But now I see why the articles have been deleted. Thanks for the clarification. Jallouljalloul (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why the WIKIpedia page for Church of the Tree of Life redirects to the Tree of Life page which does not mention this organization at all. Agreed there are many organizations with similar names (such as the Tree of Life Church) but most people searching for "Church of the Tree of Life" will most likely be looking for information about the organization that was incorporated in California in 1971 by John Mann. I'd love more information; especially about an accurate entry being able to be created on this page. Or if not at the least how to include those details on the redirect page that now does not mention it at all. From what I've been reading I first need to successfully challenge the redirect by contacting you? Thanks. Please include a cc for any reply to [email protected]

Keepertrout (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm going to decline to email you. I try to keep project business on the project, and I do not generally publicize my active personal email address.

Check out [4]. That's where the current redirect was last debated. You do not need my permission to change it's target, if you have a better one in mind, though others would be just as free to undo your change if they disagreed. Similarly if you want it gone you could start up a new deletion debate by following the instructions at WP:RFD. As far as I can see I have no history with this redirect, so I'm not sure why you would think I would be the one to have any sort of admin authority over it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of articles link to irrationalism without meaning to link to Aestheticism. The Aestheticism article doesn't even contain a section about Irrationalism. Searching the text for the word irrationalism doesn't return any results. The situation now with the redirect is that an article about philosophy links the word "irrationalism", the user clicks and is redirected to a page that doesn't even mention that word, and which isn't even remotely related to the article intended by the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Irrationalism 2620:0:1000:4501:B117:E7A0:90A1:5720 (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then the proper solution would be to write an article for it. Disambiguations are for navigating between existing pages on the project. Redirects are the proper thing to use when there is only one target that has an article. Write your page, and then you would have a proper situation that requires a disambiguation. But until that happens, a redirect is the proper form on the project. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, and it makes sense. A redirect to a page with a section about irrationalism would be better than a disambiguation page that just ended up linking there anyway. But right now Irrationalism redirects to Aestheticism. Aestheticism doesn't contain a single instance of the word irrationalism. It doesn't even contain the word rational. It's redirecting to an article that not only doesn't contain a section about irrationalism, it doesn't even mention it at all. That seems really broken to me. MCSDWVL (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Irrationalism. Since you had some involvement with the Irrationalism redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MCSDWVL (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know your edits may/have been discussed at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#AfD_culture. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

TA, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! It's been a while, but I hope you are well. Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

I'm fine. Still around, just not editing much recently. I still look into thinks every few days, especially for if anyone tries to contact me on any pressing admin issues from my older edits. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Short pages monitor#Need to define and possibly rethink this template. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't have much time today to respond, and have added a short comment there, but I'll come back by tomorrow when I have more time and try to give a more detailed response, including responding directly to points raised by others. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Lists of super yachts —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 78.148.69.211 (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Highest points per country, 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. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, 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. DexDor ^(talk) 07:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

Hi TexasAndroid.

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

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

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TTUL. Since you had some involvement with the TTUL redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

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

---

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi TexasAndroid. I was hoping to create a new page with the title Cassidy Janson but note that it was deleted by you and given Creation protection in 2007. I see that the concerns were lack of notability and good sources. I believe however I am able to create a page on the subject which demonstrates notability and provides appropriate sources. I'd be grateful if you would consider removing the protection.Misterrandaculous (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize for lurking, TA (I watch your talk page). I've looked into this myself and tend to agree with Misterrandaculous that a reasonably well sourced biography of a living person Cassidy Janson could be created from found sources. Considering the incidents which started the cascading protection are ten years old, and understanding that the now 36 year old artist is playing the lead in the London production of a major musical, perhaps it's time to revisit creation protection. To Misterrandaculous: Perhaps if you'd create a personal sandbox and begin to accumulate sourcing, you could make a good case for recreation. I'm available later on today and would be willing to look over those myself. Then TexasAndroid would have something upon which to base a notability discussion. Feel free to contact me at my talk if you need help. BusterD (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I made my comment above, I didn't realize that TexasAndroid hasn't been an active editor in some time. I'll call for help from another active admin. BusterD (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected the article in good faith. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Misterrandaculous, happy editing. Please let me know if you cannot find an image and maybe I can help. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BusterD and Anna Frodesiak. I will get to this in the next couple of days and you can see how I'm getting along.Misterrandaculous (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jewel Of India. Since you had some involvement with the Jewel Of India redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports venues in Santa Rosa, California, 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. TM 17:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Healthcare in Springfield, Massachusetts, 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. TM 15:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Fb competition templates Italy 2012–13 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1637 disestablishments requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. AusLondonder (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. Highways by state, 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. Bradv 05:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Go Town.. Since you had some involvement with the Go Town. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Certes (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MMR vaccine controversy, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gaelic poets, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Zerach (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MMR vaccine controversy, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Guy (help!) 13:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:878 births requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Old requests for college football peer review requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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