User talk:Oakshade/Archive 5

Autopatroller
Hi Oakshade, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature should have little to no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you wouldn't mind, we currently have a major backlog at Special:NewPages of articles that need to go through New Page Patrol. Since you are clearly one of more experienced content creaters, would you mind giving us a hand? No big deal if you don't, happy editing, Sadads (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll see what I can do with that. --Oakshade (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:LA Sentinel cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:LA Sentinel cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Psa airlines 3.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Psa airlines 3.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of George Hicks (broadcast journalist)


The article George Hicks (broadcast journalist) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no evidence

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &mdash; RHaworth 09:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet allegations on ANI
As a result of allegations laid against me of being a sockpuppet of your account, I have opened an SPI case here. Please feel free to comment there. Colofac (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. I left a comment there, and I will leave one at ANI as well. Hans Adler 15:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Marcus H. Rosenmüller
Greetings Oakshade, I just thought I'd let you know that I saw your article Marcus H. Rosenmüller in the New Articles list-- However, I noticed there are some holes that may need filling: the article' image currently does not contain any captions. I'm kind of new here myself but let me know if there is any way I can help. Thanks, Jipinghe (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the details of that image. Someone else inserted it.  He appears to be at some event.  Feel free to add a caption if you know anything about it.--Oakshade (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Anna Foglietta
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Anna Foglietta. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anna Foglietta


The article Anna Foglietta has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

I apologize if this comes off as patronizing; Twinkle doesn't allow you not to template the other user. Basically, just add a reference of somewhat decent quality in and you'll be fine. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 14:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to drop it
I am allowed to edit articles that you have edited or created without always being accused of stalking you. I am a new page patroller and I have a watchlist with thousands of articles on it, so there will be time when we meet. Deal with it. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No Floydian, you're stalking me and violating WP:STALK. You claim you have a watchlist of "thousands of articles", but the only two in the last year you dropped in on were mine.   That's like winning the lottery.  The evidence is there.  --Oakshade (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oakshade, in fairness, I have some editors I oppose the views of, and yes I tend to tag their work, but sometimes, tags are necessary, and really if Floydian wants to tag something, you can always follow WP:BRD and leave it up the community. Accusations of stalking doesn't help problems. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 17:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, Mitch, but the evidence of violations of WP:STALK is very strong in this case. There are reasons for these rules.  Editors should have the freedom to create and work on articles without harassment and hounding from other editors.  Floydian has been doing this for almost a year.  Have a long look at this RfC case and you'll see Floydian's actions are far beyond the good-faith effort to improve articles.  --Oakshade (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to this, I have made approximately 7500 edits in the past 12 months. If two of those happen to be articles you have created or edited (see also: WP:OWN), then so be it. I am not violating WP:STALK, but feel free to start a(nother) thread at WP:ANI if you feel otherwise, preferably using evidence that isn't a year old. Until then, stop throwing accusations at me. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  17:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That chart actually is evidence of you're stalking, Floydian. A vast majority of them are road related articles and of the 7500 edits, only 2 were a break from road articles which were both new entertainment-related articles, both mine.  And the evidence of you following me around at AfD is there too.  I'm sure you prefer nothing that's a year old is presented to anyone as any evidence a actually shows a consistent year long pattern (perhaps longer but I have no interest in digging into your past).  If you show me at least 5 non-road articles out of your 7200 edits you dropped in on as a "new patroler" in the last year - 5 is nothing compared to 7500 - that weren't created by me, I will back off of the stalking accusation. --Oakshade (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Logging truck
 * Bibliography of Ontario
 * Layton (cocktail)
 * John Thomas Moore
 * The Hero's Return
 * I mean... I suppose you could count logging truck as road related, but this is just a quick glance through of a few months; I'm not going to comb through 7500 edits to appease someone whose opinion I'm not concerned about. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Only Logging truck and possibly Layton (cocktail) in this list show them has new articles created by other people with you dropping in and tagging soon after creation. As a matter of fact, The Hero's Return you AfD'd "coincidentally" right after I was in an edit war with another user over the re-direct and you had no "new patrolling" when it was created years ago.  Not helping your case here.--Oakshade (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oakshade, you want my honesty, even as an admin, I don't want to have take someone I've worked with to ANI myself, and albeit I'm not happy with the above post, I do agree that if its such an issue, ANI is always an option, not always favored of course. I remember the last ANI post, but right now I think both of you just need time away from each other. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 17:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mitch, I can't agree with you more and that's exactly what I've been doing since that last ANI (there was one AfD we were both involved with - we both have transportation article interests - but that thankfully came and went quickly), but unfortunately Floydian has decided to throw himself into an article I just created again. I will continue to stay away from him and hope Floydian re-assess his pattern and take your advice too. --Oakshade (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made all attempts to avoid run-ins, but occasionally one is bound to happen. Please don't take it as a personal vendetta against you, nor as me watching over you. It's just building an encyclopedia. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  18:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This run-in you instigated was easily avoidable. Out of your 7500 edits last year, only two were your claim of "new article patrol" edits and of the hundreds of thousands of new articles created in the last year, you "patroled" only 2 and those two were miraculously mine.  Stop it.  Take Mith's advice and avoid me.  Not try, just avoid me.  Period. --Oakshade (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No you're only convincing yourself; I've tagged hundreds of new articles in the past year. I will continue to edit any article I please, and I won't check the history before-hand to make sure you haven't edited it. Stop accusing me of stalking unless you are going to go to WP:ANI. End of story. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  21:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As stated above, if you show me at least 5 non-road articles out of your 7500 edits you dropped in on as a "new patroler" in the last year that weren't created by me, I will back off of the stalking accusation. In the meantime, take Administrator's Mitch's advice and avoid me. Don't try, just avoid me.--Oakshade (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the No original research/Noticeboard
Greetings. This message is delivered to you in order to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue where you are involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just (talk • contribs) 00:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Tricia Walsh-Smith
Dear Oakshade. When removing the objectionable quote, you accidentally deleted another quote on another issue lower down. Perhaps you could just delete the one quote you intended? Can you please take a look? Thanks and regards.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of George Goodwin (journalist) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Goodwin (journalist) 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/George Goodwin (journalist) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. You really  can  04:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. When you recently edited List of hotels in Malta, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Marfa and St George's Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Do not edit the comments of others
I object to you editing my comments on an AFD:. Please read Talk page guidelines. You are an established editor, so I did not just undo your text deletion and post a templated warning, but I am surprised at your action. Was it intentional or a text editor glitch of some sort? I note that a couple of words in my post were garbled, so maybe you were just cleaning up my post, but I would have probably noticed it by now and cleaned it up myself, since I often revisit AFDs where I have commented. If you feel that what I wrote violated a policy or guideline, it would have been appropriate to tell me so on my own talk page and give me the option to delete any text to which you objected. In your following post at the AFD, you did seem generally in agreement with me. Regards. Edison (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Edison. That was an accident and I honestly don't know what I was thinking.  Perhaps I thought I was editing my own comments. --Oakshade (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It happens. Regards. Edison (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marco Doria


The article Marco Doria has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. joe deckertalk to me 16:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously? --Oakshade (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the contributions to Fort Peyton, I was more than a little confused as to how to complete the page with other templates and references. Rootsxrocks (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob. Always happy to help articles on worthy topics.--Oakshade (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ogden Stake Tabernacle
There are a few things wrong with your keep vote:


 * 1) Comparing a tabernacle to a Cathedral is comparing apples and oranges.  St. Vibiana's was the mother church for a million Catholics.  The Ogden Tabernacle is a meetinghouse for a few hundred Mormons.  It's not the Ogden Utah Temple, which obviously is notable
 * 2) The Google Books link isn't enough of a mention to justify notability
 * 3) To claim the nomination is POINTY and to try to goad somebody into nominating someone else is completely uncalled for
 * 4) Something being on the NRHP is a good indicator of notability...for one, to get something registered, you have to do loads of loads of research to produce a document that is readily available to the public.

Cheers, p  b  p  04:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Response left in the AfD. No need to replicate your responses here.--Oakshade (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to stop using such a condescending tone in the AfD. This ain't my first rodeo.  Also, note that your "long article" is published by either BYU or BYU-Hawaii, and therefore may not qualify as a third-party source  p  b  p  13:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Demonstrating your flawed arguments is "condescending tone? Uh, your "On the other hand, you aren't familiar with sourcing independent of the subject" is truly condescending.  I'm extremely familiar with sourcing and while you have participated in "dozens" of AfDs, I've participated in hundreds so I have an idea of what I'm talking about.  Please stop being condescending. --Oakshade (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Dongqiao
Still want to delete?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Rename of Todd Akin controversy article
Please restore that rename. As noted on the talk page, there are some serious BLP issues with the old title and it is not sufficiently clear on the subject.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

see page move war -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Hello, I'm Purplebackpack89. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Medford Oregon Temple, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. p b  p  22:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Purplebackpack89. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nashville Tennessee Temple ‎, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. p b  p  22:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Lubbock Texas Temple ‎. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. p b  p  22:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Restoring the non-contentious work of other editors is not "adding" and content only "contravenes" WP:verifiability if it is unverifiable, not currently unverified. Nice try. --Oakshade (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't "nice try" me. When you and 208 (assuming the two of you are two people) undid the redirects, you added unsourced content.  The articles you and 208 restored are still not properly sourced, and still don't prove notability  p  b  p  04:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Notability" and "verifiability" are separate. If you don't think they're notable, fine.  AfD them.  But you accused me if somehow violating WP:V which is totally false.  You also just accused me of being a sock.  If you believe I'm a sock of 208, then open a sock puppet investigation here.  --Oakshade (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need AfD, or even a discussion, to carry out a merge. Plus, if I AfDed it, you'd just call out the Mormon and ARS goon squad to stop it  p  b  p  04:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When you delete the entire content of an article instead of actually merging its content, that's deletion and you do need to AfD an article for that. Plus I never called "out the Mormon and ARS goon squad to stop it" in any AfD.  If you believe there was a WP:CANVASS violation in any AfD by any editor, then you should open an ANI case here.  --Oakshade (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you don't have to merge unsourced content... Maybe you'd better familiarize yourself with merge and redirect policy before continuing this discussion  p  b  p  05:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, when you delete all content, as you did, you need to AfD. Go ahead and AfD all of them.  I promise no canvassing, as I've never done. --Oakshade (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bourne End, Cranfield
I think you might want to give those sources more than a cursory look. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 20:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

 * Thanks, Bearian!--Oakshade (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

An Olive Branch
Look Oakshade, maybe I rubbed you the wrong way with the Filmlook, Inc AfD nomination (which, if it was in the middle of being changed, then yes I overlooked some things) - but following my recent posts and disagreeing with my editing, where it is supported by actual sources is not the way to go. Why don't you leave my edits alone, and I'll leave yours alone. Capiche? NickCochrane (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with you having an opinion that film image quality is superior to digital video. I'm neutral on the subject.  But you can't just write film is "higher quality" when that's simply a subjective opinion.  Sure there are those who agree with you.  But there are many who don't. Here are some sources that are examples of those who don't agree with your opinion:  The latter is entitled "New Peter Jackson flick to shoot in better-than-film digital video."  Just like you can't stipulate in an article "Jerusalem belongs to Israel," you can't state an opinion, whether it be about film or anything, as fact.  Have a long read of our policy WP:NPOV and particularly how it says in bold "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and you'll see that it's policy.--Oakshade (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not opinion. If you actually read some of the actual scientific studies you would understand. NickCochrane (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like we'll have to elevate this to an official WP:NPOV discussion.--Oakshade (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we really have to? I added a bunch of sources. Edit wars are not fun. NickCochrane (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I hate edit wars too. Outside opinions and cases are used to avoid edit wars.  It will be put together soon. --Oakshade (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed/reverted a couple of edits by Nick that violated WP:NPOV, but some of them are such big changes that my lack of expertise in this field means I won't touch them. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A NPOV case will be open. But pending the Sockpuppet case, we're not even sure who the POV violation disagreement will be with lol.  As a check user Admin found, turns out there might me many more socks of this account.--Oakshade (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You're too slow Oakshade, I've already opened the NPOV AN/I - I'm sick of dealing with his vandalism now, I don't really want to wait until the CU closes the SPI case, or only gives a short block, or whatever! (AN/I here: ) Lukeno94 (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry about that. Charles (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD, etc
Hello there You commented on this AfD I posted; I’m partly letting you know that I made a reply, but it’s no big deal; I mainly came here to say I noticed you had written an article on Slippery rail (when I checked your userpage, to see who I was talking to). I had no idea we had a page on the subject, and spent a happy hour reading it and the associated source articles (not least the guest publication, Tree Weekly!). So, thanks for that! Moonraker12 (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

SummerPhD
Problem editor who doesn't contribute anything except frustating other editors from contributing. Very dictatorial and combative over absurd interpretations of the rules. Really does a good job driving people away from Wikipedia. If you want to do something about her, myself and a few other editors will back you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's certainly something to keep an eye on. If WP:DISRUPT becomes rampant, a case might be open. --Oakshade (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I know this was a month ago and not even a discussion I was apart of but yea I second what ColonelHenry said. Just saying. Lady Lotus (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Long Beach bike path
Oakshade, I appreciate your desire to keep this page, but according to the City of Long Beach, there is no "Long Beach bike path." There is a Shoreline Bike Path, and the map in the bike guide you linked to is of the Shoreline Bike Path. Take a look at that link to the City of Long Beach web page for more information. Rednikki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see here
Talk:Angie_Phillips

Rob Ford entry
I definitely agree with your take on TRPoD. I left those points in as I didn't think they made any meaningful difference. If anything, it helps reinforce his apparent bias. <font color="#FFF"> Natty10000 |<font style="color:#FFF;background:#0099CC;"> Natter 15:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Appreciate it. --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Stephanie Banister for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stephanie Banister 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/Stephanie Banister 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. Shirt58 (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Valérie Bonneton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Little White Lies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks!--Oakshade (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Politeness, please
Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, but please take the time to edit out any hurtful or careless comments before you post them. Thanks. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The comments were very polite and straight-forward. The nomination was in fact careless.  Had you taken only a fraction of the amount of time to create the AfD to follow WP:BEFORE, you would've quickly found this wasn't a deletion candidate.  I don't think pointing that out is "hurtful."  Didn't mean to be so. If you feel the comments were incorrect, you are more than free to counter them.--Oakshade (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:In popular culture
Template:In popular culture has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Trackinfo (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Jetblue AFD
You forgot to sign you !vote. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

February 2014
Your recent editing history at Ventura Freeway shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh cute. I'm sure there's no hypocrisy here and that you simply forgot to leave this also on Nikkimaria's talk page.  But don't worry, I just did.--Oakshade (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He deleted it and I didn't look at his talk page history. Fair enough.  I undid my warning.--Oakshade (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ventura Freeway
It would seem that you are bothered by the frequent changes but couldn't be bothered to explain why. Explaining this on the talk page (rather than ignoring the talk page discussion and restoring the info that does not explain the connection) would have been helpful. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The claimed content was un-sourced and had nothing to do with the actual cited source. This was a blatant obvious thing that shouldn't require a paragraph on the talk page.--Oakshade (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "This will have to go to RFC if this continues." This refers to a "blatant obvious thing" never previously addressed? I would think that before taking something to RFC you'd want to explain what the on-going problem is. As it now stands, the content blatantly, obviously does not discuss the song's "impact on popular culture". Rather, it is a simple listing of an appearance. Additionally, the source you've located for this is about, um, economic policy? A more direct source with an interview of the song's author puts him on the Pacific Coast Highway. The song is not about the Freeway. The name refers to a sign that said "Ventura". Is that about the Ventura Freeway? It doesn't look like it is. Maybe it is. Damned if I know. The complete lack of sources saying the song is about the highway, much less explaining the Freeway's supposed "impact on popular culture" should be telling you something. Please feel free to comment on the article's talk page. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=599247561 your edit] to Maria Bamford may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * * The Nerdist 20130

Disambiguation link notification for July 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dominique Issermann, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tiffany, La Perla and Nina Ricci. 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) 08:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/HMS Richmond helicopter crash
Much as I appreciate your efforts, letting it get personal is not a good idea. I know it's easier said than done, but it's usually better to let it go than to get bogged down in it (especially when your opponent will inevitable reply with another 3,000 characters!). Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell, you're correct. I just felt insulted by the guy and let it get to me.  Best.--Oakshade (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
When you are calling someone a sockpuppet, like you did here, it is common for an admin  to remove your comment, particularly on a blocked user's page. You can always file at SPI, but calling someone a sockpuppet without backing it with a report is seen as uncivil, particularly when it is moot, and the editor has had his talk page access removed so he can't defend himself. I've removed the comment. Dennis - 2&cent; 18:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough about the editor being banned so they are not able to defend himself. It seems pointless to open a SPI on an already banned user. --Oakshade (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Sitush, Dennis and Bbb23 are supportive of a Sock Puppet Investigation SPI being opened. I will assist if needed if I can get my computer up and running properly, otherwise it may be a week before I can help.--MONGO 18:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally wanted to add that my cursory examination at th old Rfc and arbcom cases leads me to believe that the behavioral evidence indicates Patrol Forty is a Sock of that banned editor. I imagine if I looked further it would be hard to argue against that.--MONGO 18:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would bet money he is a sock as well, but linking him to someone is probably a fruitless endeavor. CU records are probably too old, we don't have a definite master (if we did, we would just link him without the formality, as Bbb23 and I are both experienced with that.)  Oh, and SPI is major backlogged.  I mean, if it would help to do it, then I'm all for it, but since we have this incarnation blocked and talk page removed, I think we've already done all the good we can do.  And there was a lot of talk about him way before the block, in private.  We already knew.  But if you have a clean match, no one minds filing a case.  Dennis - 2&cent; 18:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It was pretty evident in the first few edits frankly. Oakshade merely saw the connection. I suggested he tag it but frankly, the rudeness this editor has encountered from the likes of User:Bbb23 was, as I would anticipate from that "editor", where the rudeness lies. Patrol forty was an obvious ban evader after all...no one with a clue doubted it. Should you guys wish to continue to act condescendingly about such a trivial matter then do so to me as I suggested the tagging.--MONGO 02:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, "you guys" would be interpreted as you thinking I was acting condescendingly. I didn't see Oakshade make that claim, and I instantly went to his talk page to discuss the revert, explaining the reason for my actions.  Dennis - 2&cent; 02:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was...I am thinking that, yes. Policy says...."Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." I looked at the evidence and it was uncontroversial. Perhaps since there isn't a formal Bbb23 approved SPI yet done or the tagging was incorrect, but the facts are that I'll bet all 7 cents in my pocket that Patrol forty is that arbcom banned editor. Course, only admin-types get to make such assertions I suppose...even though editors like me were doing SPI many years ago. Anyway, as I said, I suggested Oakshade log it or contact arbcom...missed in all this was ANY offer of thanks to Oakshade for making the connection! Grrr...maybe its not so good I got my computer up and running!--MONGO 02:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting your judgement in his history. As a matter of fact, most admin already concluded that.  But making a claim (not a tag, not an SPI report) on a blocked user's page when they have talk page access removed and there is little chance of an unblock, that is unnecessary and not helpful.  And I explained above, and Oakshade said that was a fair enough explanation.  I didn't threaten, I didn't play the admin card, I didn't communicate through just an edit summary, nor judge him for putting that on the blocked user's page.  You're making this bigger than it is; it wasn't a comment on the SPI system, it was a singular revert.  Dennis - 2&cent; 15:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the part about Patrol Forty being a ban evader. What is wrong with posting on the talk page who is the likely candidate? If SPI is so backlogged why wouldn't we post the info there since this is an arbcom ban evader? I'm not making this bigger than it is, you are. If Patrol Forty is somehow having his nonexistent rights violated so what--MONGO 18:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Come on Mongo, you know as much about admin'ing as I do. Tagging can lead to random drama, and I know you have seen it yourself, maybe even more than I have.  You try to not cherry pick editors, so to be fair, you discourage it from anyone unless it is the person who blocked them or similar, who has put their neck on the line by making the block.  Play coy if you must, but again, you KNOW this stuff first hand. Dennis - 2&cent; 22:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Was at work during the day so I couldn't respond. I kind of agree with both of you.  I feel uncomfortable making a charge against someone who is unable to defend themself, but I do think as there is currently such a limited amount of editors who find strong behavior evidence of a previous account there should be some guide for all future editors/admins should this disrupting editor come back (he probably will given his history).  Since P40 is already banned, I don't know if there's use in opening a case unless it can be helpful for editors/admins if or when the disruptor does return.--Oakshade (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks! Appreciate it! --Oakshade (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Too Many Cooks image
There actually is a requirement for non-free images to be an essential part of a sourced critical commentary, and for non-free content, the burden of proof is to show why an image belongs, not why it should be taken out. There's already an ongoing discussion about the image and you're free to read through it, and I suggest reading up on WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. In the meantime, please stop reverting the edit without providing a compelling reason why it doesn't fail WP:NFCC#8. Mosmof (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mosmof, I'm very familiar with WP:NFCC and the visual image of the "homicidal maniac" in which the visual does a tremendous job at enhancing the reader's understanding of that character. Thank you. --Oakshade (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But ttremendous doesn't mean it's essential, especially when there's zero discussion of how he looks. Mosmof (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Mosmof, an image of that a "homicidal maniac" looks like is essential as that's how he's described in the content and it would detrimental to that understanding of what a "homicidal maniac" looks like in the show's context.--Oakshade (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on Preston 28 February 1980
You have no reason to remove the tag from this article. As I wrote in the edit description, notability is not inherited, and each Wikipedia article must establish its own independent notability, which this article currently doesn't (there is currently only one acceptable source: AllMusic). I would appreciate it if you re-added the tag to this article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lachlan Foley, read the edit summary and you'll see a "reason" of removing your incorrect notability tag. As I wrote, if you disagree and feel this article fails WP:NOTABILITY, send to AfD for community input.  I should remind you that WP:NOTABILITY only requires the existence of sources, not that they be already in the article to satisify an impatient edit warring editor.  --Oakshade (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your reason is "Joy Divison album with Ian Curtis". Fanboyism is not a legitimate argument for justifying the independent notability of an article. On the WP:NOTABILITY page it also says:


 * "[...] an article on an artist or band that does not indicate that the subject of the article is important or significant can be speedily deleted under criterion A7. [...] In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability."


 * And where does it say that I need to actually go through the process of nominating an article for deletion if I feel that it does not establish notability? I do not have to; that would discount pretty much the whole purpose of having this tag in the first place. I am using it as a warning to editors and potential editors to add more sources and, if not, the article may be deleted in the future.


 * Either one of us re-adds the template or, if you do not agree, I will be happy to report your behaviour as violating WP:NOTABILITY. Lachlan Foley (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lachlan Foley, being an album by the iconic Joy Division indicates the subject is important and is not subject to A7. You now want to speedy delete the article because of A7?  None of your quote is actually from the WP:NOTABILITY page.  What's actually from WP:NOTABILITY is:
 * "'' Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation."
 * It took only a few seconds to find independent, reliable sources.  You don't have to send an article to AfD, but if you continue edit warring with a single editor, then send to AfD to get community input in the matter if you feel the community will support you. Otherwise you're just a single editor editing way out of concensus - After years of the community feeling the article was notable, you are the only editor who felt it is non notable and there is zero evidence consensus has changed.. If you feel my "behaviour" [sic] is not in line with WP:NOTABILITY and want to make WP:CIVIL violating threats to "report", then go ahead and report it so the whole community can scrutinize your tagging actions.--Oakshade (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I was reading from Notability (music), which is what appears when you tag a music article like this. Even though that page seems to contradict the main notability page, as far as I'm concerned this set of guidelines is more relevant.


 * BtW, "behaviour" is the British and Australian spelling of "behavior". I am very sorry, I will move to your country and change my language ASAP. Lachlan Foley (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was a bit snarky with the behaviour spelling. It showed as misspelled on my computer and in fact I am misspelling it to much of the world.  My apologies. --Oakshade (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And Lachlan Foley, I notice you are no stranger to violating 3RR with complete inability to respect and work with other editors, so much so that you have been blocked for 3RR violation less than two weeks ago (see Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive267). I think your behavior is becoming disruptive to the community and I'm not the only one who thinks so.  Might we need community scrutiny of your actions in a request for comment?--Oakshade (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Oakshade! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

"Found That Soul"
Have removed notability tag & added a few references, which together with the fact it charted demonstrates that it clearly meets WP:MUSIC now. Dan arndt (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice! --Oakshade (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kerakat railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jaunpur. 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) 08:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ventura Freeway vs. Los Angeles High School
The IP user who made [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ventura_Freeway&oldid=660844782 this edit] actually moved the content to Hollywood Freeway, and it looks like they may be correct. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Oakshade (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Figured it was appropriate ...

 * Appreciate it. Thanks! --Oakshade (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 needs help
Hi Oakshade. I have a problem I hope you can help me with. I was playing around in my user sandbox (just lots of miscellaneous testing of wiki code stuff, including some snippets I copied and pasted from a real article). Anyway when I have the stuff in my user sandbox user page everything is OK. But when put the same stuff into my user sandbox talk page, I immediately get the following warning: This sandbox is in the User talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the template. I don't understand; I thought I could use both sections of my personal sandbox (User Page, and Talk) for more or less whatever I wanted (as long as it's not malicious or illegal). Why am I being told to move it somewhere? I don't even understand what they're telling me to do, let alone why they're telling me to do it. I really appreciate any help you can provide. Thanks. Richard27182 (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Richard27182. I'm afraid I don't know much about sandboxes as I've never used them before so I can't be of much help.  I can refer to you to User spaces, About the Sandbox and Help:My sandbox which show guidelines regarding your own space.  You can also ask questions at Help desk.  I've found them very responsive.  Good luck!--Oakshade (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 needs more help
Hello Oakshade. I would like to ask your advice on something. I'm considering making a change to an article. It wouldn't be my first change to an article, but it *would* be the first time I remove material as opposed to adding or slightly altering material. I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. If you have time and if it wouldn't be inconvenient, perhaps you could take a quick look at it and give me your opinion. The discussion is at Talk:Kinescope. As always I appreciate any help or advice you give me. Richard27182 (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 needs your help again.
Hi Oakshade. Once again I need the help of someone experienced. But this time it's not technical but more like "political." I'm trying to correct an error in an article. I made the appropriate correction, which was promptly reverted. Rather than getting involved in an "editing war," I contacted the reverter and tried to work something out, but to no avail. So I started a discussion on the article's talk page. All I ask of you is to check it out and weigh in with your opinion. The talk page is Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film). Thanks! Richard27182 (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Notification
Hi Oakshade. I'm filing a request for help with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution concerning that Technicolor dispute. If I understand the instructions correctly, I'm supposed to notify everyone who is or was involved in the discussion. In order to comply, I included your name. Richard27182 (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Please take another look
Hello! I am leaving this note for you because you participated in a deletion discussion about the Wikipedia article titled Institute of Continuing Education. I substantially expanded the article today (for the helluvit), and would appreciate if you would take a look and see if it’s better than when you last saw it. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Persondata
It is no longer being used on articles-I was confused also but I found out they are now removing them, so sorry about that! Wgolf (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I'll look for something better than IMDB.  RU WP has good sources.--Oakshade (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Continental Flight 603
I have opened a discussion on the talk page []. I will appreciate your response there, when you can work out the time. Thanks much, EditorASC (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wild Field


The article Wild Field has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unreferenced article about a movie which does not seem to meet WP:MOVIE

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. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Wild Field for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wild Field 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/Wild Field 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. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikilove - Cool
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

 A dog 104  Talk to me has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

I like to give you some pie in order to help cool tensions, hopefully we can be good with each other soon.

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Thank you. Didn't mean to sound mean.:)  --Oakshade (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hopefully were good now. Nice debate, I've got to hand it to you, and may the best argument win.  A dog 104  Talk to me 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kim Allen (actress), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lipstick Jungle. 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) 11:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

A hoax article you voted to delete
An article you voted to delete, Articles for deletion/Las Californias Province has reappeared as The Californias. The article is a notable WP:HOAX. Its author has been stalking and reverting me for a few years because I was against the hoax in the past. If you have forgotten, User:WCCasey rearranged pieces pasted from other articles on Baja California and California to make The Californias Province look legitimate. He has perpetuated the hoax under different titles since around 2007. I just nominated the current incarnation for deletion. Thanks for your time. Wyeson 08:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Loubna Abidar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber. 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) 15:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nermina Lukac


The article Nermina Lukac has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  11:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

2015 Heimdal train derailment
Please avoid any edit warring at this page. A merger has been proposed and can be discussed at the target article so please do make use of this venue instead of reverting back and forth. And please keep WP:3RR in mind. De728631 (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * De728631, the merger is proposed, not agreed upon. The AfD Articles for deletion/2015 Heimdal train derailment was closed by the administrator as "The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged here. The notion of a merge for these two articles can continue to to be discussed at Talk:List of rail accidents (2010–present) if desired."  It was TL565 that was edit-warring and not respecting the administrator's close.--Oakshade (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Welcome to the Hall of Fame!
--Rosiestep (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Wikipedia and United Nations Women Project
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) Delivered by Rosiestep (talk) via MassMessage 04:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Indigenous women & Polar women editathons
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Request for your comment
Hi! I see that you commented at Articles_for_deletion/London_Buses_route_153. You may be interested in commenting at this new Article for Deletion nomination Articles for deletion/London Buses route 53. Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming editathons: Women in Nursing & Women Labor Activists
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Invitation to 	 Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Vandalism of a registered user
Vandalism of a user registered in the article :Barranco de Badajoz.--83.55.88.100 (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

An invitation to November's events
(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

December 2016 at Women in Red
(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

SwisterTwister and wikihounding at AfD
Hi Oakshade. In response to your comment here "Are you stalking? WP:STALK?" on User talk:SwisterTwister, I asked SwisterTwister the same question on 13 November 2016 when he supported deletion in three AfDs within 20 minutes after I had posted in them. After SwisterTwister removed my post on his talk page like he has done to your question, I posted at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938, where the ANI responders were dismissive of my concerns of being hounded. Pinging whom I had discussed this with so he's aware. Cunard (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Cunard. This does seem to be a MO with this user.  I think there is validity for a new ANI as their behavior has not stopped. --Oakshade (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the user's hounding behavior is becoming a pattern, but I don't know whether a new ANI will turn out differently from Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938. Perhaps the following of editors around will not be dismissed as a coincidence now that the user has hounded a second person. Cunard (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm interested to hear 's opinion. I can formulated an ANI, but it might take a day or two as I'm kind of busy. --Oakshade (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am busy, so unlikely to become involved. If you feel a problem is evident, maybe go to ani. North America1000 12:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Oakshade. in response to your comment here: I've also experienced hounding from User:SwisterTwister. From one article of mine to a second and then a third-- all in the short time span of a day. Not just him actually, but another too. I'm not sure how to deal with this as I am very new to WIKI. What can we do about this?Andresramon (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon
 * you are a brand new user with fewer than 100 edits, almost none of which have been constructive., while maybe blunt at times, has tried to help you. People are not "hounding" you or out to get you. You are creating blatantly promotional pages. When someone with nearly 150,000 edits who has been on here for 8 years called you on it you start crying "oh poor me" and want to take them to WP:ANI. Get over yourself. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When I see a new editor who created a promotional reticle, I would certainly see what else they had done--and, rather often of the time, it would turn out that the other work was promotional also. If I didn't follow up on this I wouldn't be doing an adequate job of New pages patrol. But it is usually my practice to nominate for deletion the worst article first, and go on gradually.  DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series
The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.


 * Use   to invite others using this template.
 * Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list. North America1000 12:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Mail
C, didn't see anything come in. --Oakshade (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - Oops, I did it again. Let me know if it came through. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , it did. --Oakshade (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello Oakshade: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Festive greetings!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Women in Red logo.svg A barnstar of deep recognition for all your efforts on Women in Red throughout the year. Enjoy the end of year festivities and prepare to put more women on the world map in 2017. --Ipigott (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)



William D. Oswald
I have just found some new sources on William D. Oswald, including one from the Deseret News, that may cause you to reassess your views of the matter of whether the article should be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Speedy deletion nomination of Olga Frycz


A tag has been placed on Olga Frycz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. JMHamo (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Note about BLP source tag
Do not remove those please, the reason why they went up is because the only source you have is IMDB which when that is the case that tag goes up! Wgolf (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wgolf, which exact statements do you feel are contentious or libelous? If there is, a citation-needed tag would be most helpful. --Oakshade (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017 at Women in Red
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging