User talk:155blue/Archives/2013/07

yes

Warning

When someone tells you to stay off their talk page, stay off. Educate yourself on WP:BLANKING and WP:OWNTALK. If you keep abusing your tool, you may be reported. Now move on. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And educate yourself on the difference between a warning and a template. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you also need to learn what vandalism is. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the manner in which 76.189.109.155 responded was a bit harsh, I'm going to have to agree with him. Since you were able to remove the messages that we had left on your talk page in the past, he deserves the same right. It seems as though you have been reporting users for vandalism, and marking articles for deletion, without even assuming good faith. I'm not scolding you as an editor as what Pburka said, you really have the best intentions of Wikipedia wired in you, but a little too much. When you reported me for puppetry, I was scared out of my shoes. I believe 76.189.109.155 felt the same way. Please only use administrator intervention for obvious vandals, and not people who had made mistakes or misclicks in editing. Thanks. GuyHimGuy (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:76.189.109.155. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hi 155blue, I've seen your username come up a few times in Huggle and you seem to have potential as a vandal fighter. Would you be interested in an adoption? Kudu ^~I/O~ 19:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thanks for asking! 155blue (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Feel free to add {{adoptee}} to your user page, and please contact me on Freenode (same username) when you have some time. :) Kudu ^~I/O~ 16:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Limonium jovibara

Hello 155blue. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Limonium jovibara, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I consider that any documented botanical species is notable. I can't find that in writing, but if you disagree, try AfD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 155blue: Regarding my edit to "There Once was a Man from Nantucket," the reference to John Valby was meant to enhance the "In Popular Culture" paragraph. I'm not sure what sort of sourcing you are looking for here. Certainly Mr. Valby is well-known in "popular culture" as an original creator of limericks, many of them with a (somewhat) crass undertone. There are numerous YouTube videos of Mr. Valby, including his parody of this 'poem' in his diddy "Ya Ya." Other than sourcing to YouTube, which is not really an original source per se, I'm not clear on how to source this. Perhaps you could provide some suggestions. Thank you.

Train Station Speedy Deletion

I have been declining your speedy deletion tagging on train stations, they don't fall under the assorted criteria you are listing, for example Baegwon Station is clearly a train station. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

are they notable at all?155blue (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. Notability is not a speedy deletion criteria, a station on a major railway line is enough of an indication of importance to not meet the speedy deletion criteria for A7. As for the ones you tagged with no context, in order to qualify you have to not be able to tell what the article is about. In this case the articles were clearly about a train station. No context is one of the more frequently misused CSD criteria. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also those pages have been around for four years, this warning says they were recently created. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Police State

Hi 155blue, I actually don't have any personal disagreements with the sentiments deleted on "Police State", however, the paragraph had been tagged for sourcing for several months, and the two sources at the end contained a dead link and another link that appeared to not actually support what I deleted. I'm happy to search for sources on this topic if you have any thoughts. -Elwrucko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elwrucko (talk • contribs) 01:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re 108.249.22.222

Thanks for your efforts with this guy. Two points though: A) I am not an admin. 2) Even if I were an admin, users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages, except for active blocks, requests for unblocking and a few other issues. (See Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings.) The user has been removing warnings consistently, but they are all still visible through history. IMO, he has enough rope to repeatedly hang himself, we just need to keep pulling the lever. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War

Hi. In response to your post, I suggest you examine the talk page of the article in question. I have made every effort to engage in discussion of the issues and try to reach a compromise, but other users insist on setting their own policies and reverting 100% of my large contributions. I see you have made no similar warnings to users who have reverted my edits without justification. Indeed, one user simply removed the NPOV tag because he declared the discussion to be over. CJK (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Avakyants

Hi, I am curious if you read on the awards that were given to this person? See, he was awarded Order of Naval Merit which is higher then Order of Honour to be honest. I will strongly suggest to study it a bit before contesting for deletion. Also Order for Service to the Homeland in the Armed Forces of the USSR seems to be high too. However, if I am wrong, feel free to drop me a note on what is considered to be a notable person when it comes to admirals.--Mishae (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Avakyants db-person nomination

I have removed your speedy deletion nomination from this article. The first line states:

Sergei Iosifovich Avakyants is a Russian admiral and a recipient of Order of Naval Merit and Order for Service to the Homeland in the Armed Forces of the USSR.

This is a clear assertion of notability. db-person is only for articles which make no credible assertion of notability. If you believe that the topic is non-notable, please consider using WP:AfD instead. Pburka (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Declined CSD on Jason Atwell

I declined the speedy deletion on Jason Atwell as the article makes several claims of significance. If needed, you can take it to AfD. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 16:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]