User talk:Postdlf/Archive23

Articles_for_deletion/Lower_level_design
Hi Postdlf, did you intentionally keep the bundled article, High-level design? Or did you not notice it? Only one of the respondents addressed that second article, so maybe it's worth nominating it on its own to get more feedback. Sancho 23:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that was overlooked, sorry. It's a risk with the later-added articles whenever they are not formatted the same as the initial nomination; I'll have to watch for that better. I agree that there's no clear consensus to delete that second article. Two options: 1) I could reopen the AFD and relist it; or 2) I could note in my close that there is no consensus regarding the second article and explicitly suggest a second separate AFD for it. postdlf (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I like option 2. I'm still on the fence about high-level design myself. Sancho 04:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. postdlf (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Backstreet Boys' eighth studio album
I was the one who wrote the article, didn't start it but did write it, didn't know it was nominated for deletion because I've been away (just got back today actually). Can I get a copy of the source text? Like, the whole thing? I would've saved a copy of it if I had known it was nominated for deletion. I need it for my own personal archive. Thanks in advance.--  Krystaleen  07:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Krystaleen/Backstreet Boys' eighth studio album. Please tag it for speedy deletion once you have made your copy. postdlf (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--  Krystaleen  03:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly the same thing happened to me with my article - highest football grounds in England. It's a useful resource, a popular pub trivia question, and I know I've actually met people who have used the page! It got deleted over a weekend, so if I don't check Wikipedia over 2 days over a weekend, a whole article gets deleted? I don't know what classifies as original research these days, but surely using publicly available data and maps isn't original research? It's a collation of existing material. Gavinio (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But the problem is it's existing material put to a purpose that is not reflected by reliable sources. The AFD discussion was unanimous while it was open in determining that football stadiums are not categorized or analyzed by their altitude even if you can find verify any individual stadium's altitude. Calling it "pub trivia" is actually an telling characterization, because that's a common label thrown out in fact by editors who think something should be deleted, if the article doesn't amount to more than pub trivia (and I say this as someone who is quite fond of pub trivia) because Wikipedia is not the place for that, as it's too far away from what an encyclopedia is. I did close the discussion early because I saw no chance of further discussion changing that consensus. If you can show me that there is a valid argument to make for the list being kept that is supported by relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:LISTN, WP:LISTPURP, WP:GNG, WP:NOT, etc.), I'll consider reopening and relisting it, or at least direct you to how to otherwise have that discussion reviewed. I know it can be frustrating when something you worked on and used gets deleted, but that's inevitable because of the standards we try to maintain. It's more likely to happen when you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia simply because you are new and it takes time to learn all the various acronyms people throw out and how they are put into practice. Are you aware of Wikiprojects? They are collaborations between editors on certain subjects, such as WikiProject Football, and they are a good place for raising ideas for new articles or for seeing what articles need some help from willing editors. postdlf (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Syrian Civil War slogans
The result was delete but you only deleted the redirect List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans is still there. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out; the closing script I use didn't catch that because the page had been moved since the nomination. postdlf (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Why?, when there is new information?.

 * Hi Postdlf, speedy deletion of Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi was not the proper way, did you read the talk page of the article, there are new reliable sources that were cited and text is very different than previous one, and that was also edited by me.You just deleted the article without accessing the new cited sources.I do not understand your move?. would you please clarify your positipon in this regard. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I directly compared the deleted version with your repost and did not see any new sources; the only differences were some copyedits such that there was a slightly different order in which the sources appeared. Perhaps I missed something, but any change would have had to be minor so as to not stand out, and best practice is still to have that evaluated at Deletion review rather than unilaterally recreating it. No offense taken if you go that route. postdlf (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes I was mistaken to recreate the article without discussing/asking you, because you closed the discussion as the result "Delete", as a closer administrator. I still have to learn many things/rules. Of course and surely you missed to access this source and its editorial board. I do not want to comment on "there was a slightly different order", but I bold to mention Not neutral?. Other thing the issue was not the content, that was lack of "significant coverage" and that was provided and cited in the new version that you speedy deleted per G4?. The previous version was also edited by me. How you will copy edit any version or rewrite?, just a example, "He received master degree or he obtained or studied". It is very logical and common sense, you cannot make it in any other original supper version. Anyhow, I have already requested at Deletion review. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for PAGE Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi
An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Justice007 (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SNOW and deletions
I'm fairly certain that you understand that invoking WP:SNOW to delete Articles for deletion/List of bands whose leader is not the lead singer is invoking WP:IAR, WP:IAR is applicable to deletions and keep; however, I think there is a reason WP:SNOW is worded the way it is. WP:SNOW, as I read it, applies to cases where there is no support for the original proposition, not to cases where the support is overwhelming. Again, WP:SNOW isn't a policy, but just an explanation of one, so my interpretation of it does not matter since IAR applies to both cases. In the case of this, allowing the article to remain for the entirety of the discussion would not have been damaging to the encyclopedia. My biggest concern is that the author of the article had not yet weighted in by the time of the snow closure. It's possible that the author could have enlightened the rest of us in a way that might have swayed the vote. In any case, I don't necessarily expect the deletion to be overturned unless an objections is raised by the author. Ryan Vesey 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * SNOW, even on its own terms, doesn't have anything to do with whether the overwhelming consensus is for or against the original proposition, but instead the principle simply applies when continuing with ordinary processes would be pointless, as I believe is the case here. If the original author or anyone else were to complain to me about this early close, I'd ask them what argument they'd present if I reopened it and then evaluate what impact that argument might have on the outcome. postdlf (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Alsbridge page
Our company page was recently deleted due to a misunderstand of how to setup a page on wikipedia and our desire to start fresh and provide a quality page with notable content. I would like to verify before setting up the Alsbridge page that this passes by policy. Also any insight on how to develop a quality page with note worthy content would be much appreciated. thanks Johnmeyerson (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)johnmeyerson
 * My first bit of advice to you would be not to do it at all, exactly because it's your company: read WP:COI. Our usual view is that if a subject is worth writing about, then it shouldn't take someone affiliated with it to write about it. We take a very harsh view of those who would try to use Wikipedia for advertising or other self-promotion. Outside of those concerns with the integrity and motivation of who contributes to an article, we require that subjects are notable, which means that they have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. To count towards establishing notability, these sources must be independent of the subject, so you should take note of the criticism in the deletion discussion about press releases not helping. More specific inclusion criteria for corporations are at WP:CORP. postdlf (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of high school fraternities and sororities
Hi Postdlf, I am not very good at all of this but am wondering if you could help me out. There was a page List_of_high_school_fraternities_and_sororities that was deleted back in August of 2012 that I am wanting to at least get a copy of. I don't really know how all of this works and it has taken me quite a long time to get this far to ask if I can get a copy of it or have the information moved onto another page that is active on high school fraternities and sororities. There are several links and books that can be used as references but as a minimum I would like to get my hands on a copy of the Table that was 90% of the page. I am not even sure where the info will come to if you do take notice of this posting or not. Thank you for your time, Kppiphi (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've posted a copy of the table at User:Kppiphi/List of high school fraternities and sororities. I will delete that page after one week. If I were you I'd be wary of just trying to dump that table into another existing article, given that the main reason for its deletion was that it was almost entirely a list of non-notable organizations (see WP:ORG, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:LISTPURP for relevant guidelines, as was pointed out in the AFD). There are somewhat different standards regarding what content deserves a standalone article and what content may belong within a larger article topic, but it is generally considered a problem to list a lot of things that don't merit their own articles no matter where you do it. Perhaps propose it on an article's talk page first, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools about where the information might or might not belong. postdlf (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

thank you for your help, I did copy the table. There were at some point a bunch of their crests as well can you get those too? I still don't understand all of the whole "what is important and to whom on Wikipedia", obviously there is a certain prejudice against high school fraternities and there has been since the early 1900's (due to exclusvity, under age drinking, fighting, etc. that some of these organizations became known for). The problem is that most have been gone for quite some time due to laws and regulations being passed by schools to prohibit members from attending their schools and so most were underground and not school sanctioned since 1910 or so. But with that said, I understand that some people don't have experience with the organizations and so find them not notable. There are famous people from the past who were members of these fraternities but not enough research has been done and not much is available on a lot of them. Gamma Delta Psi claims thta William Howard Taft and Dwight Eisenhower were members of their fraternity and I know that Walter Rauschenbaum and Archbishop E. J. Hanna were founding members of Pi Phi as I have their biographies and both mentioned their membership at Rochester Free Academy back in 1878. I know 100% that these two fraternities alumni still meet on monthly or quarterly basis but they are the only ones that I am well acquainted with. Links to these men as well as the fraternities web pages could have been established but truthfully most people I know don't even understand how all this works. I don't even know if you will actually see this and if I am even responding properly. Personally, I have been a member of both one of these as well as a large national collegiate fraternity and the high school are definitly more closeknit and loyal to each other. Again, I thank you for your help. KP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kppiphi (talk • contribs) 13:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "I still don't understand all of the whole 'what is important and to whom on Wikipedia'..." Did you read the policies and guidelines I linked to above? Did you read through the deletion discussion? Whether or not people have personal experience with a subject shouldn't be relevant to whether they think it merits an article. Usually it's better for inexperienced editors to take some time to just observe and contribute to the encyclopedia in small ways, such as by copyediting prose, expanding existing articles, etc. postdlf (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Article Title: Amapola Cabase
I would like to create an Amapola Cabase article to redirect to Maria Cabase. I followed the links and it showed me you did the deletion so I am enquiring if I can go ahead with a new redirect page for the simple reason that the artist mentioned is well known by the name Amapola and no one knows Maria Cabase. I would appreciate any advice. I am new and learning to edit. Swiftscw (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done: Amapola Cabase. postdlf (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Jean Evrard Kouassi
To let you know,You deleted the article and Jolicnikola recreated it straight after your delete. Govvy (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've re-deleted it and warned him. postdlf (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of SKB Cases
Why on earth did you delete SKB Cases? You closed the AfD the same day it was relisted. It should be given due time for more comments. The delete votes were not nearly enough for a SNOW close either. Could you please justify your close? Vaca tion  9  22:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From WP:RELIST: "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days." The consensus was clear by that point that the subject was not notable. postdlf (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not know about that clause. I apologize. Vaca  tion  9  23:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And Articles for deletion/Jean Evrard Kouassi - this was only given five days. The only reason for an early close per WP:AFD is SNOW or Speedy Deletion. You cited neither of these in your close. Vaca tion  9  22:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Were you planning to add a "keep" argument before I closed the discussion? postdlf (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not, I agree with the close. However discussions should be kept open an entire seven days to allow for further discussion, similar to WP:RFA even if consensus is obvious to promote. Vaca  tion  9  23:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a point here. I've closed I don't know how many of these football player AFDs, and though it's not at all my editing area, it's quite clear that the subject's notability guidelines are consensus-supported and quite clear in their application. So when I see at this stage in the AFD that there have been a number of commenters and there is unanimity in deletion on the basis of the player failing WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, I have every confidence that there's nothing left to be said in the discussion. You can imply that that's a "SNOW" close if you want, but outside of closes within a day or two of the AFD's opening I don't see the point in expressly invoking it. postdlf (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Thank you for clarifying. Vaca  tion  9  00:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Chris Claremont photo
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the discussion on whether to include a 1990s photograph of Chris Claremont in his article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

WP U.S. Supreme Court Cases in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court Cases for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to SCOTUS cases and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

United States Park Police Page
Hi

I'm Lieutenant Reaves of the United States Park Police (USPP). I understand that you are the creator of the USPP Wikipedia web page. Are you or weere you an emnployee of the USPP. If so, may I please get contant information. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.224.50 (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, never had an affiliation with the USPP. postdlf (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank You for the response... Did you research the agency or did most of the content on the website come from unknown contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.83.224.50 (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article's edit history, you'll be able to see who contributed what to the article. I don't think I've done much with it since I started it except occasionally monitor the article for vandalism; this is my original version. I would have used whatever online sources I could find at the time, probably mostly relying on the USPP's own website. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Iron Maiden (heavy metal band)
Category:Iron Maiden (heavy metal band), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Terry v. Ohio
Should the affirmation go before the holding text instead of after? I have no idea what I was doing remapping that there. Solicitor General (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It should stay right where it is. Read any SCOTUS opinion syllabus; whether the lower court was affirmed, reversed, etc., is stated after the syllabus summary of the holding. postdlf (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. I totally misread it. I think I was reading the wrong syllabus handling another Ohio case, thinking the SCOTUS box in Terry V. Ohio was representing it wrong. Apologies. Solicitor General (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Empire of the Sun (band)
Category:Empire of the Sun (band), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details
Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as: are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Louis M. Goldsborough.jpg
 * File:Christopher R. P. Rodgers.jpg

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Pattycake (gorilla)
Hi. Looking through commons, I see that you've uploaded images of primates in the past. Do you happen to remember if any of these gorillas were named "Pattycake"? I'm looking for her image to add to her developing article. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the dates I took the photos are really the only information I have. It's now been a few years since I last visited, and I don't recall noticing the gorillas' names even at the time I was there. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: I think this photo you took might be Pattycake.  Compare it to these and this one taken in 2010.  What do you think? Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Brooklyn Bridge
Hi

I'm a graduate bridge engineer writing a paper about suspension bridges. I really like one of your pictures of the Brooklyn Bridge and was hoping to feature it in my paper. Would you consider granting me permission to use it?

Many thanks

Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.104.12 (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * 2012 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Clarence Thomas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Immigration and Nationality Act


 * 2012 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Samuel Alito (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Immigration and Nationality Act


 * 2012 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Sonia Sotomayor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Immigration and Nationality Act

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Mark Millar
Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding an Infobox photo here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Restoration for Alpha Sigma Rho wiki page
The page for Alpha Sigma Rho Sorority was deleted for not having enough sources and seeming to be promotional. However, there are many credible sites from chapter websites and FaceBook that can be used to credit the information written. Although I did not make the wiki page, Alpha Sigma Rho Sorority, Inc. should have its Wikipedia page restored and more information should be added to add more detail.

Credible information on Alpha Sigma Rho can be found here: http://www.asr.uga.edu/history.html http://texasasr.org/founding.html http://www.asr.uga.edu/asrfacts.html http://texasasr.org/symbols.html http://www.asr.uga.edu/chapters.html http://tuasigrho.com/Philanthropy.html http://tualphasigs.tumblr.com/

Other links: https://www.facebook.com/AlphaSigmaRhoUGA https://www.facebook.com/pages/ASR-at-UTSA/168537226565795?fref=ts https://www.facebook.com/groups/104656266235555/ https://twitter.com/AlphaSigmaRho https://twitter.com/UT_ASR https://twitter.com/UGA_ASR http://www.youtube.com/user/kieuatomic http://www.youtube.com/user/TexasASR http://www.redandblack.com/news/alpha-sigma-rho-raises-money-for-chinese-orphans/article_6fa27eeb-386d-5190-9fb2-7f0aa808d93f.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.29 (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Please provide a link to the WP:AFD discussion for the deleted article, and explain which, if any of the information sources you've posted above qualify as "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as that phrase is used at WP:GNG. If everything I just said seems like gobbledygook to you, I suggest you instead start with our welcome page to learn about how to contribute to Wikipedia before trying to push for the inclusion of a particular topic. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link for the discussion about the page's deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alpha_Sigma_Rho The chapter websites qualify as reliable sources because they were created and edited by people who are experts on the history and facts of the sorority, sisters themselves. These sources have been the same for years and will maintain the same. All the information is public and can be seen by anybody. The chapter websites can be used to support any claims made in the original wikipedia page that were not supported before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.29 (talk • contribs)
 * Please read through all of this more carefully before you proceed any further because you're missing a key point. I asked you to explain how those were "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as that phrase is used at WP:GNG. (Did you read that link?) That independence in sources is necessary to establish notability, not merely to verify statements of fact, and the lack of independent or secondary sources was commented upon by multiple participants in the AFD. postdlf (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There are not many reliable sources that are independent of the subject because the sorority is a small one. However, I have found some. http://www.chinacare.org/news/2010/03/22/alpha-sigma-rhos-cultural-fusion http://broadandcecil.temple-news.com/2013/04/16/greek-week-celebrates-sorority-and-fraternity-life/ http://www.redandblack.com/news/alpha-sigma-rho-raises-money-for-chinese-orphans/article_6fa27eeb-386d-5190-9fb2-7f0aa808d93f.html http://www.universityloveconnection.com/alpha-sigma-rho-%CE%91%CE%A3%CE%A1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.28 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your second source does nothing more than mention its name and so isn't helpful. The fourth source is of unknown authorship and questionable reliability; it seems like it was just copied from another source, and even contradicts the sorority's own website on some basic facts. The other two look more promising, though the Red & Black story could easily get dismissed as being nothing more than local news coverage. If I were you, I'd look for more, and consider that if few sources have ever written about it, it may not be appropriate for an article topic. When you are ready, post a request at WP:Deletion review by carefully following the procedures laid out there, and make sure your request lays out the secondary source coverage you have found. But if you don't show some familiarity and understanding of WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:RS, you aren't going to get very far, and you'll likely just get a hostile response if everyone thinks your only interest in Wikipedia is to make sure this sorority gets an article. And please start adding a signature to your comments. postdlf (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Tinker v. Des Moines
It wasn't "their" protest that was scheduled to end. The protest did not belong to the students who decided to take part in that action. The protest was scheduled to end on that date, the whole protest, not just the action of wearing armbands to school by the students. AzNbAbYgUrL (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to add to the article that the students' actions were part of a larger protest planned by other people, changing "their" to "the" at the end of the paragraph does not make that any more clear. But I reverted your changes in total not for that but because they have been careless; your edit resulted in the sentence "The principals of the Des Moines schools agreed to adopted...", for example, and adding "agreed" was not constructive even had you reconjugated "adopt" properly. I question even whether the details you want to add are even relevant to understanding the case and the Court's opinion rather than making it unnecessarily complicated, and if you are not even going to bother to proofread such edits before saving them, you are not improving the article. postdlf (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557422791 your edit] to Temperance Fountain (Washington, D.C.) 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].

Talkback
I had requested to remove some articles to be removed from AFD which I can find reference on google books. Benedictdilton (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

AfD
I wholeheartedly disagree with your reading of WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE in regards to Articles for deletion/1528 in India. I am willing to bet that there won't be significant expansion of that stub for the rest of the calendar year. While I recognize WP:NOTPAPER, 1528 in India is empty. I really fail to see the need to keep it when it would never have been approved by WP:AFC. Please tell me where I'm going wrong. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 04:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I gave no judgment on 1528 in India, so that's the first point on which you're wrong. postdlf (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Canadian international airports without United States border preclearance for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Canadian international airports without United States border preclearance 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/Canadian international airports without United States border preclearance 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. Edge3 (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Curb Chain
Hi, per your suggestion here, see: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. I've never been to AN/I before for any reason. I'm not trying to canvass you, but if I missed something that I should have mentioned, could you let me know? Thanx. Guy1890 (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, he's now at DRV basically trying to get a "do over"...ugh... Guy1890 (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That will only make him look worse. I'm pretty busy right now in real life, but I'll keep an eye on the ANI. I think you have good cause to just revert his removals from the list (taking care not to remove what few citations he added) and then if he reverts again bring that up at ANI. postdlf (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: Looks like a few other editors have noticed and have already restored the removed links, and are working on improving the list. So that got accomplished, at least. postdlf (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the AN/I report will be going anywhere right now, unless Curb Chain does something dumb from here on out. The list in question appears to be in decent shape right now. Thanx for your advice & assistance. Guy1890 (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Northamerica1000(talk) 06:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)