User talk:Lexein/Archive 21

Detailed explanation
OK, firstly, rather than just arguing about what the template does, why not just have a look at Template:References and see for yourself? Go on, click on that and what do you see? I see a redirect to Template:Unreferenced which adds a message box containing the message "This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed...", and I see a detailed explanation of what it does and how to use it. I presume you can see that too? It doesn't add a References section, does it? The template adds a list of references (but not the actual section heading) and that was there all along. You say that when you look at the article it has "a complete reference section now, because I added it". Yes, it has a complete references section, but not because you added it - it can't be because you added it, because I removed your addition of the template very soon afterwards. It has a complete references section now because it has always had one. If you've been away, you may have forgotten that the history of an article can be seen by clicking the "View history" tab, and from there individual past revisions and differences between them can be seen. This is the history of the article, and this is the revision at 11:23, 4 March 2018, before it was nominated for deletion. Can you see the References section, which was always there? I can. This from 06:19, 31 March 2018 is the revision after being nominated for deletion by User:Isingness, and the References section is clearly still there. This is the comparison between it and the previous revision, and you can see that all Isingness did was add the nomination message and clearly did not remove the References section. This is your addition of the template - you can see you added it before the References section. And this is the result - see the "This article does not cite any sources" message immediately before the References section, where you added it? Finally, this shows me removing your addition, albeit with an incorrect edit summary as I too had misunderstood what you did at that point (a bot had added a timestamp to it, which is where the "|date=March 2018" comes from). This is the result, which shows the References section still there, where it always was. As for the stated reason for deletion, it's at Articles for deletion/Opencola (company) and says "Not a notable subsidiary, consider merging if there is any material that is notable though. Isingness (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)". And you clearly have seen it, because you have responded ""Not a notable subsidiary" is not a valid statement..." To sum up, you have made a number of mistakes here and appear to have not seen, forgotten, or misunderstood a few things. That's understandable and is just fine - and there are plenty of people here who will help you. But what is very much not fine is launching personal attacks on other editors (especially not fine when they are based on your misunderstandings and on accusations of things they have not done.) Please feel free to ask me for explanations of anything you do not understand (but I ask, please don't write to me in CAPS as that is considered shouting and is not polite). But please also understand that I will not hesitate to block you from editing if I see any further personal attacks or unfounded accusations from you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And your approach here of attacking those who think differently to you as lazy is not acceptable. I don't see it as sufficiently egregious to warrant a block at this point, but a block is almost certainly in your future if you do not change your attitude to discussion and to collegial interaction. I strongly suggest you read WP:Civility and WP:Consensus before you make any further comments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. If you look at my edit and discussion histories you'll see a long, noble and fair tradition upheld of no personal attacks(except for some occasional snark). I've always, on the other hand, had little to no patience with underhanded deletionist tactics. In this instance, the confluence of en.m.wikipedia rendering a couple of things not visible and my phone having a tiny screen anyways, on top of preview not showing what it should have left me at a disadvantage seeing the References section. Not a good circumstance. I can't promise NOT to occasionally shout(it's easier thsn counting bloody ticks). Again, thanks for Talking to me. A Block would freak me right out. I've had a terrible,awful, no good two years, and that would suck. Please, Do what you can to stop the rampant deletionists, eh?Lexein (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OpenCola-company-logo-cropped.gif
Thanks for uploading File:OpenCola-company-logo-cropped.gif. 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) 17:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox photo discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Sure, thanks for inviting me. Lexein (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Avetik Chalabyan article up for deletion
Hi Lexein! About 2 years ago I wrote a biography of a living person article [|Avetik Chalabyan]. The article has been recently marked as up for deletion. Any advice on why this might be happening, how to address it or what to improve would really be appreciated. Obviously, your vote as an experienced editor on Wiki would really go a long way to make sure it's not deleted.

Thanks in advance for your attention to the matter.

Alice Ananian (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Tom King Infobox portrait discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tom_King_(comics)#Which_photo_is_a_better_choice_for_the_Infobox? this discussion]? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done! my pleasure. Lexein (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion
Hi. A conflict has arisen on the Adam Hughes article. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * done

Orphaned non-free image File:Slashfilm blog logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Slashfilm blog logo.gif. 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) 18:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IndexOnCensorshipLogo2012.png
Thanks for uploading File:IndexOnCensorshipLogo2012.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) 17:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Adam Hughes talk page
Hi. You may recall in April 2019 we had a disruptive IP editor with an Austin, Texas-based IP constantly reverting the wording in passages in the Adam Hughes article pertaining to the "Real Power in the DC Universe" poster. Now another Austin-based IP is doing so, beginning with this edit. I then reverted it, explaining why their edits were not improvements, but they reverted it again, insisting I take it to the talk page, which I did here. Can you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)