User talk:Macr86

User:75.142.152.104
Hello, are you the same person as ?

76.66.203.138 (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles recreated as redirects
You recreated stuff like Heatwave (Transformers) as redirects. Please make sure that the rediects go to the appropriate section. It's not helpful if they don't. Especially regarding big lists like List of Decepticons. NotARealWord (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Those redirects are now up for discussion. See Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 18, specifically the sections on Landshark (Transformers, Heatwave (Transformers) and Transformers: Timelines. NotARealWord (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, how do you know about that? Macr86 (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How do I know about what? Please be specific.NotARealWord (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs
If you're going to nominate articles for deletion, and copy previous rationales, like the ones listed below of my prior AfDs, please make sure they're at least accurate. In the first pair, there isn't a huge copyright violation, and in the second one you hadn't removed a copyvio.


 * Articles_for_deletion/Silverbolt (mine)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Silverbolt (Beast Wars) (yours)


 * Articles_for_deletion/Rotorstorm (mine)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Rotorbolt (yours)

Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD Transformers
If you more editors to participate in Transformers related AFD's I recommend putting them in WikiProject Transformers/Deletion sorting Dwanyewest (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Ja Ga  talk 05:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Input strongly requested
You recently moved La Stazione to New Paltz railroad station without any explanation, and without rewriting the article's lead (which, in my opinion, is worse than leaving the article with an incorrect title). I strongly request your input on a second move request I have opened, specifically about the article's name regarding WP:COMMONNAME. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of Requested moves/Closing instructions. I'd strongly suggest that the closure being discussed here was not suitable for a non-admin close in it's current state - especially by someone who has only been active for 3 months and has less than 300 edits.  Indeed it's debatable whether you should be closing any requested moves as it states - "Experienced editors in good standing are allowed to close some requested move surveys," and I'm not sure you're suitably experienced.  I'd also question this close and this close.  In the first two cases with so few !votes and those !votes opposing each other I have no idea how you managed to discern a consensus.  The last is particularly worrying as there was a very long discussion, involving some sensitive issues and I certainly don't think it was suitable for closure by someone so inexperienced.  I would be interested in hearing your reasoning as at the moment it would appear your a) getting closes wrong and b) closing requested moves you shouldn't be closing. Dpmuk (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ammo (RPD machine gun)
You should not have moved the article from 7.62x39mm to Ammo (RPD machine gun). The move discussion on the talk page had not achieved consensus in favour of the move, and in fact the only contributor to the discussion was opposed, with strong reasons given.--Srleffler (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

And another poorly closed RM
In your closure of this requested move you make no mention of the other move that was in the move requested, namely Pozorrubio (disambiguation) → Pozorrubio. I notice now that you've started another requested move for that very move, despite it having already been discussed. I'm going to sort this out but can I suggest you refrain from closing requested moves until you have more experience. Dpmuk (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And another one. Some of these looked like you imposed your own opinion on the close.  As a closer you should just be determining consensus, if you have an opinion you should be !voting instead.  There is no way there was any consensus in that discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I've just noticed it had only been open a day. Requested moves should last a minimum of a week.  Please don't make any more closures until you have more experience how these things work as at the moment you clearly don't understand well enough to be making closes. Dpmuk (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Macr86, you have created an unnecessary AfD at Articles_for_deletion/Pozorrubio_(disambiguation). Please ask Dpmuk to fix whatever needs fixing, since he just closed a related discussion about Pozorrubio. Until you have more experience, you should not be closing these moves. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI - improper WP:RM move proposal closure
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding improper WP:RM move proposal closer. The thread is Improper move closer by non-admin User:macr86 at Talk:Ann Arbor.The discussion is about the topic Talk:Ann Arbor. Thank you. —Born2cycle (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Moves
I'm going to strongly recommend as an administrator that you refrain from doing any moves for an extended period of time. Clearly you are closing discussions incorrectly such as this one. If you continue to do this, it is likely that you will be blocked for vandalism. Several of your closes were for clearly controversial discussions which non admins should not be closing. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Macr86, hi.

Hi. You're being talked about, at the "Administrators' noticeboard" (link). You seem interested in article titling, but we can only get stuff done by working together. You seem to want to help; please work with us so we can cooperate on the project. It looks like the Ann Arbor page is going to move back, while the discussion continues. This conversation is still active and evolving, so we'll need to let it run longer before making a decision. Please let me know if you have any questions about it, or about any editing matters. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be taking a lot of flack on the Admins noticeboard so I will not labour that matter but I would like an answer to the following: do you agree that when a page is moved, it is the duty of the person doing the move to fix all incoming links? &mdash; RHaworth 16:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you to keep you from doing any more page moves until you figure out what the problems were with the moves you did recently. If you need any help figuring this out, let us know, and we'll explain in more detail. While the block length is indefinite, it's not intended to be permanent. Once you have the page move rules clear, use the unblock template to request that the block be removed. I hope we get to do this soon.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan are coming to unblock from Macr86

 * "your reason here" is not a reason for unblock. Explain why you should be unblocked, or it will just be declined again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And you should log into your own account to post the request. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Windmill (Transformers)


The article Windmill (Transformers) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Redirect that links to no articles at all, based upon an obscure Transforemrs character and fails GNG.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mabuska (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Longhaul
Hello, Macr86,

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

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

Thanks,  Rob van  vee  19:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)