User talk:JJBers/Archive 2

The Signpost: 4 November 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Two things
Hi JJBers. I deleted User:Bdhsj000, which you created with what appeared to be mocking text, and reverted your edits at User:SwisterTwister. It's generally considered impolite to substantially edit other users' user pages, especially if you're only mocking them (in the first case), or they have blanked their entire page due to frustration (the second case). Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not to be a wise guy, but I think you sent to the wrong person, I'm already part of the project.&mdash; JJ Be rs  &#124;  ta lk  02:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Corinth, New York
Hello! Your submission of Corinth, New York at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * JJBers, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you nominated this article: it is not new, certainly doesn't qualify as a recent 5x expansion, and isn't a newly promoted Good Article—the only three ways an article can qualify for DYK. I'm posting this as a courtesy, to remind you of the newness/recentness requirement, because the creation/expansion/promotion needs to have occurred within the past seven days, and also to let you know that the nomination has been closed as unsuccessful because it is not a recent 5x expansion. Best of luck with your next DYK nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

AfC
Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have temporarily removed your names from the AfC helper script access list. A quick glance at your talk page reveals that you are still not ready for this complex task yet and you are not familiar with the content of WP:NPP which details everything you should really know for reviewing article drafts. Please spend a couple more months doing general editing and then come back to AfC when you have more confidence. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Former Interstate 84 (Connecticut—Rhode Island) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Former Interstate 84 (Connecticut—Rhode Island). Since you had some involvement with the Former Interstate 84 (Connecticut—Rhode Island) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk,  contribs ) 14:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I-84 (Connecticut–Rhode Island)
Re: WPUS50k: Does this article lean towards one state over the other? For reconciliation purposes, it'd probably be best not to count this towards both states when only one template is added to the talk page. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess it leans toward Connecticut.&mdash; JJ Be rs  &#124;  ta lk 22:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

WPUS template
Woah, why did you move the WPUS50k template? Now the category has reset to 11, unless a bot will go through and repopulate based on the redirected template? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, like said in the move it's self, the "k" is really un-needed, and I checked the pages that were affected, and they looked fine. Including the category, the total is at 577, the same as the page.&mdash; JJ Be rs  &#124;  ta lk 22:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, I guess the system just had to catch up. Thanks for checking. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=750303940&diff=prev reverted] my fix to Interstate 84 (Connecticut–Rhode Island).

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both  and one or more   referring to it. Someone then removed the  but left the , which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining  with a copy of the  ; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add  to your talk page.

Nomination of Interstate 84 (Connecticut–Rhode Island) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Interstate 84 (Connecticut–Rhode Island) 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 Articles for deletion/Interstate 84 (Connecticut–Rhode Island) 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. –Fredddie™ 03:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Challenges
Hi, I don't mean to be a control freak, but can you please not create challenge pages unless there is the support there to join them? Mexico is never going to get 10,000 articles on here, and that would be part of the Latin America one anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, but at-least keep the Mexican one, because it will most likely get the support some time later. Also this happened with Canada.&mdash; JJ Be rs  &#124;  ta lk 22:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're way too bold with the challenge series, which coming from somebody who is used to doing everything himself on contests and challenges it's a bit disturbing to keep seeing challenges and contests created with little thought behind them. Some of the things you've removed or altered too is putting me offguard, such as removing all of the details from the Destubathon page, so it's increaisngly difficult for me to monitor things. The CA/Nevada one doesn't look to me like it has the support to sustain a sub challenge. This sort of thing really needs at least a dozen active editors working on states. It's much easier long term I think now to just focus on the main 50,000 Challenge. I appreciate your support and enthusiasm, but you're making it increasingly difficult for me to keep track of things with this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

User:VarunFEB2003
Hi, why did you move those subpages to subpages of User:Example? Was the user renamed? I can't find any discussion about this. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is because the user was indef banned, so I moved it to a non-controversial page.&mdash; JJ Be rs  &#124;  ta lk 20:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But why? Yes, VarunFEB2003 is under an indefinite block (n.b. not a ban), but those pages that you moved were not good examples of how to behave, so should not be passed of as example user subpages. In fact, they are incredibly bad examples, and are part of the reason for their block. Please move them back where they came from, and delete the resultant redirects. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , just as an update I've moved the pages back to their original locations. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


Redolta is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Red olta 📱 Cont ribs 00:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JJBers!


Happy New Year! JJBers, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. MB298 (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

The Signpost: 17 January 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your edit of Norwalk, Connecticut
There is no such reference within MOS referring to any of the context claims regarding your edit of Norwalk, Connecticut. Please research the attached shortcuts and if you believe there is any support for your claims please show me and I will concede and step aside. Until then, your edit to the page Norwalk, Connecticut is unacceptable and has been corrected. WP:MOS→→→WP:STYLEVAR, MOS:STYLEVAR, MOS:VAR, WP:WHITE, WP:TOC Thank you and have a nice day!——→StephenTS42 19:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please don't send the same message twice, either use the talk back feature, or just ping me in your talk-page. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  00:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As you closed the ANI discussion, I thought I'd mention it here. StephenTS42 has "left" before, also over the Norwalk article. See here. It took him all of three and a half hours to return on that occasion. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI
I finished my ANI request, please add supporting evidence there. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 02:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:IG
Hey, would you mind self-reverting the galleries at Hudson Valley? The policy WP:IG discourages them unless really purposeful, with a central theme and motive. Otherwise images work better on the sides of articles, and take up less room. I'd recommend reading all of WP:IG, it explains it better than I can. Thanks. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 02:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed one of the galleries, but one of them was created due to it taking up more room than needed and heavily compressed text. I also changed the gallery type and size for the other, pre-existing gallery. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  02:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 05:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly
This is not necessary. Taunting is not appropriate, and if your emotions are that tied up in this, then you need to fix yourself. I suggest that you self revert out of humble self reflection. Timothy Joseph Wood 22:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop
This is not appreciated and has been removed. Now stay away from my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's fine that reverted it, but you were clearly taunting the user in the AFD. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  19:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I told you to fuck off from my talk page, then you returned to template me again. Are you more stupid than I already thought? - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see you are at school I will assume that "school" is not meant in the US sense, which includes university/college. It doesn't really excuse you returning to my page but it does perhaps explain the naivety in inserting yourself unhelpfully and unnecessarily into a dispute. You've completely misread the situation, perhaps also not helped by a lack of familiarity with issues relating to India-based articles (which are subject to a special sanctions regime) and the fact that (who was also not appreciative of your warning) is someone who has previously contributed under another, seemingly undisclosed username. My suggestion to you is to drop this: I can't comment about Inlinetext's actual experience, nor whether theirs is a clean start, but templating someone like me who has a mass of experience in the topic area and was posting numerous potentially helpful notes for those who might not, is rarely A Good Thing. You've misjudged this situation big time. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a basic Wikipedia problem can't be dealt with because it has India to do with...&mdash; JJ Be  rs  21:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * While issuing threats bandying NPA, it is expected that you shall provide a specific diff and discuss since the lead in these policies do not convey the full effect of the text. (a) Did I use an "epithet" ? (b) Was I not discussing content in the context of those remarks ? (c) Did I threaten you in any way ? (d) Did I ask you to fuck off as some other editors do and get away with ? (e) Did I not explain to you in the format "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y" (mentioned as WP:AVOIDYOU) ? So then what specifically are you upset about ? Please diff it so we can communicate better. In future be WP:CIVIL and don't undo comments from joint talk pages (like article talk pages). Incidentally I am also now reversing your strikeouts for those 2 SPAs on the Delta Meghwal AfD now that the SPI/Checkuser finds them unconnected. Inlinetext (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am conveying to you that your statement "Keep the reference out, all it does is mention the victims name" diff is factually incorrect and verifiably deviates (considerably) from the truth. I shall not embarass you, at this time, by setting out all those portions from the Australian University journal's research paper which contradict your statement since you can very easily read the paper yourself. Inlinetext (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't revert it because of that, I reverted it because 80% of it was just attacking me and other authors, while sometimes bringing it up. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  00:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Your restoration of two dead external links, and so forth
I gather from your activities two weeks ago that you are a leading authority on sock puppetry on Wikipedia. As a secret admirer of yours, I would very much like to attend your next advanced level course: «People never forget to sign in to their account, oh, no, no, no, it is always sock puppetry.»

Two week ago you also reverted my edit on an authority on stupidity, the psychoanalyst Wilfred Bion. Your revert brought two dead external links back to «life». Is this another specialty of yours? Clowns und Kinder (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. I removed the dead links, but will not be re-adding the video link.
 * 2. You were using the logged out IP in a edit war that resulted in a block. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  19:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

War on Talk:Norwalk
Didn't see that coming; wow. Though you handled yourself very well. It takes all sorts, the important thing is not to be disillusioned or put off. I'm sure you have met idiots on the internet before. The conciliatory note is, imo, a last grasp to continue the fight. DO.NOT.FEED.THE.TROLL. Best, Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Note
About userpage warnings, when you post a warning on a user's Talk page, and they remove it, the community takes that as a sign that they read it. This is described in WP:OWNTALK. Re-posting a warning as you did here becomes itself harassment... there is no need, and it only looks bad on you. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Oh alright then, I'll self-undo it then...&mdash; JJ Be  rs  00:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess you beat me to undo it...&mdash; JJ Be  rs  00:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. I don't want to beat a horse here, but when dealing with an editor who has problematic behavior, it is really, really important that your behavior remain good.  The reason for that, is that if you want to ask the community to take action at ANI or some other forum where behavior is addressed, your own behavior will also be examined, and if you have acted badly two things will happen: a) the focus will turn away from the other editor, and your goal in asking for action will be thwarted; and b) you may get sanctioned or blocked.   I have seen many an ANI thread derail because the original poster had dirty hands. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm dropping the stick from beating the horse for nearly a month (really two separate events). &mdash; JJ Be  rs  00:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Refactoring
Do not do strikeouts like this. If you disagree then it is ok to say so, as you did, but striking out is not acceptable. Strikeouts should usually be done by the person who posted, as a correction to their original message. Revdels are a completely different matter, of course, but you do not have the privileges to enact them and, frankly, you're not going to get those privileges any time soon if you persist in your rather prissy attempts to stifle the comments of others. - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh....I've seen ANI's and AFD's where normal editors strike out other people comments, using citing irrelevance to discussion....I guess confusion caused it. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  00:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a time when you may get away with it. You're nowhere near the number of edits or years of experience for that and, frankly, I doubt that you can find many examples at ANI or elsewhere. Just use a bit of common sense: say what you think as a response but do not presume to censor others. FWIW, I think you are right regarding your objections in this instance. I also think that there may be an issue regarding CLEANSTART in relation to Inlinetext ... but that is one for another day. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It bothers me too. I am also bothered how you feel you can unilaterally end discussion.  You seem very invested in getting this article deleted.  Why?  Why not just let the closer decide, and if there is no consensus, let the discussion run? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite good, Thanks!
Much thanks for excellent work. Your recent edit to Norwalk, Connecticut is much appreciated. Carry on!——StephenTS42 (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Oh no wait. Ceoil (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at COIN
I realize wanting to participate, but maybe we should let the COIN regulars sort this out—especially, since Inlinetext is much more involved in the conversation and you two already had experienced a certain level of acrimony. I'd prefer not to resort to something compulsory like an interaction ban... Thanks. El_C 18:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good point. I really have nothing much to contribute there other than one attempt at getting more commercial entities found. I'll leave at this point. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  13:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JonTron Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:JonTron Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Downtown Raleigh fire


The article Downtown Raleigh fire has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Per WP:NOTNEWS.

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 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 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. SL93 (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Downtown Raleigh fire for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Downtown Raleigh fire 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 Articles for deletion/Downtown Raleigh fire 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. SL93 (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Byram River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairfield County. 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) 09:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI/I notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User 24.34.58.178. - a minor mention. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Page “List of countries whose capital is not their largest city”
Hello, on 19 March 2017 you edited the page “List of countries whose capital is not their largest city”. You removed the voice about Italy saying “Rome is still the largest city”, but this is not correct. Rome is the largest by just its municipality population but Milan is far larger both in terms of urban population and metropolitan population. You can easily check this on the Internet, in studies by OECD, UNO, EUROSTAT, etc, and in every other page of Wikipedia (e.g. “List of metropolitan areas of Italy” or “List of metropolitan areas in Europe”). If this page refers just to the city proper population, then the caption below the picture is wrong as it says “Countries whose capital is not their largest city or metropolitan area”, and at least some data as Shanghai (34 mln is metro population) should be fixed and the entire page should be renamed “List of countries whose capital is not their largest city by municipality population”. More correctly and wisely, I think this page should consider the metro (or urban) population, since the real size of a city is given by its metro area, not the municipality. In this case, there should definitely be a voice about Italy, as Milan is without any doubt larger than the Capital (and Naples is larger too). Thanks (and sorry for my english) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.232.181 (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I see that it seems to be mixed up and using either the metro area on some entries, or the city proper, like Shanghai, it's metro area is used, but in Washington D.C., it's city proper is used as it's population. I believe that the city proper should be the way the rankings are determined, due to the fact that metro areas can be too broad in some countries, and it updated the population less often. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  15:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That's true but some cities have a municipality that is much smaller than their real urban size. That is the case of Milan, Naples and also Paris or Barcelona. Other cities instead, have a city proper population that corresponds or is even larger than their actual size, like Rome or Berlin. That's why I think it's not correct not to put Italy in this list, as Milan is actually far larger than Rome. And also Naples is. Anyway I understand what you say. But in this case, if this list it is determined by the city proper, then it should be at least renamed "List of countries whose capital is not their largest city (by municipality population),  the statement "or metropolitan area" from the picture caption should be deleted and every data should be homogenous. If I may suggest, best thing would be making a list determined by the municipality and another list by the metro area. I think it would be more correct and very exhaustive. Anyway, thanks a lot!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.54.235.28 (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , well, be bold. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  02:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!——→StephenTS42 (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

DRN case closed
This message template was placed here by Yashovardhan Dhanania, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Norwalk, Connecticut". The case is now closed: lack of extensive discussion on article talk page. If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Yashovardhan (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional comments by volunteer: edit summaries are not considered part of discussion for this purpose

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), 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/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan 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.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 22:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), 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/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Xaosflux/Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan 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.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 22:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)