User talk:WikiWikiWayne/Archive 1

Philip Karl Lunderberg listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Philip Karl Lunderberg. Since you had some involvement with the Philip Karl Lunderberg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Checkingfax (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice
This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

My user page was hacked by a sysop imping me
Somebody imped a sysop to create two unflattering categories, imped me, and added the two categories to my user page with this edit:. Please investigate. Checkingfax (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that edit was not made by you? An admin (sysop) would not be able to falsify the log entry showing who made an edit. Are you sure no-one else had access to your account? I suggest you change your password, and use a strong one. JohnCD (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the reply. Nobody has access to my account, nor my system, nor would have the knowledge or motive to imp/harass/vandalize my user page. How does somebody create bogus Categories without them being redlinked? That's why I stated it had to be a sysop. I have a strong password but I shall change it per your suggestion. What is the next step to find out who was able to create bogus blue-linked categories, and hijack my identity? Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Category:I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue and Category:Information technology articles needing expert attention are both pre-existing categories, they didn't have to be created. All we know is that someone editing from your account added them to your userpage. I suppose, if you are worried, a Checkuser might be able to determine the IP address the edit came from, but I don't know that that would help much. JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

, your email to me was blank and I have not received a subsequent email. Please run a Checkuser on the Editor that hacked and vandalized my account. Please email me the results. Please put another YGM here when you reply by email. Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , Here is the diff for the User that hacked my account that was protected by a strong password. Please run a Checkuser as WP has a security hole. Checkingfax (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Claycord.com for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Claycord.com 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/Claycord.com 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. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Frank Somerville for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frank Somerville 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/Frank Somerville 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. Stickee (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of William Frizzell (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on William Frizzell (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 "Click here to 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. (t) Josve05a  (c) 17:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Umpqua Community College shooting. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. ''There is zero question about this issue anymore. Read the discussion. '' &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * , don't you think a DE for removing 4 hyphens is a bit over the top and disruptive to my peace? You're harshing my mellow, bro/sis. Having fun. Cheers! ... Checkingfax  ( Talk )  03:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you pinged me, I assume you actually want a reply. Here's my reply: No. Glad you're having fun, but you're making things very not fun for everyone else. Sorry for the buzz kill, bro/sis. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fanny's your aunt


A tag has been placed on Fanny's your aunt, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

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. &mdash;  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 12:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I've declined this speedy, as I think you just got the redirect syntax wrong, which I've now fixed. It now redirects to Bob's your uncle which is what I presume you intended. Ged  UK  12:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , good catch, and thanks for the speedy fix! Cheers! ... Checkingfax  ( Talk )  19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. Ged  UK  07:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct order of sections
Please see WP:LAYOUT for the correct order of sections: Peter coxhead (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See also
 * References
 * External links (including links to sister projects)
 * Navigation templates


 * . Thank you for the refresher. Sister project links, portal links, and navbox links are wikilinks (internal links). Internal links are normally placed in the See also section if one exists. What is the logic behind moving sister project internal links and navvbox internal links down in to the external links section? Is WP:LAYOUT an AGF/use-common-sense guideline or is it a rigid policy? Thanks again. Checkingfax (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, links to sister projects aren't strictly "internal" links. As for navboxes and portals, when expanded they push down any text below them, so are, in my view, rightly placed at the end. It's useful for readers for there to be consistency in layout, apart from the more "professional" appearance this creates across the English Wikipedia, so there would have to be something exceptional about an article to depart from WP:LAYOUT. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverted/Rolledback pending-review stuck in review-queue
I reviewed the Macaulay Culkin article and Reverted the 2 pending-changes but both stayed in the Pending-changes queue so I tried a Rollback but the rollbacker reported "there is nothing to do". Macaulay's article still shows the 2 reviews as "pending".

Here is a link to the diff page: Macaulay_Culkin&diff=cur&oldid=680295614# Here is a link to the queue: Special:PendingChanges Please help. Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It might be because the editor made a change and then reverted it. Since it was accepted as a revision, it counts as an edit, not a pending edit. I tried to un-accept the edits and put them back in the pending change queue to reject them but it didn't work. Something's not going right but in any regard it was reverted. Mkdw talk 03:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Hurley
Please refer to my close at Andrew Hurley (disambiguation)'s nomination for a possible resolution for the disambiguation page situation. As it currently stands, there is no primary topic for "Andrew Hurley". Also, I removed the "two dabs" cleanup tag you had placed on Andrew Hurley since it was invalid; the tag would only apply if the phrase "Andrew Hurley" applied to a primary topic, which it currently doesn't since Andrew Hurley is a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

People's archives
Hi, Checkingfax. The archives are off-limits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , Not sure how or why that got posted in your archive. Go figure. It still applies, though. I pasted it on to your live page for your convenience. Cheers!  22:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I replied before reverting you at my archives. That you thought I needed such a tag because I state on my user page and talk page "Editors wanting to close the gender gap could not rely on her to spread any good word about this site." is not something I agree with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Shortcut for mainspace article?
I just noticed this. Is this allowed? I've only seen them used for wikispace stuff, IOW not for the encyclopedia. --  05:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , If the article had an infobox or a photo I wouldn't clutter it with a shortcut (PPUCV). I don't think the little box off to the right crowds the page. That article name is a tongue twister and I can never find it easily. The shortcut is not built with a WP: in front of it, so it just goes from article space to article space and does not cross any borders like the WP: ones do. I think it will be OK. Unconventional, but OK, IMHO. I've seen them on a couple of User pages ... now that surprised me. Cheers!  05:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you're walking a thin line. I suspect someone may complain some day. If you made it a redirect that would be a different matter. No one would ever see it in mainspace. Just be careful. --  06:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Came here to say something about it and noticed this conversation.  "shortcuts" are not found on articles.  Please don't add them.  Also, you created the redirect which I nominated for deletion (see below).  Don't create these either because 1)  There was no needed  2)  Redirects for articles are done for "plausible" cases, not shortcuts.   U.S. -> United States for example.  Bgwhite (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. --  06:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Links to user space
I've deleted the redirects you created to userspace, including to your user page. Not only is it against MOS, it is also a speedy delete criteria (WP:R2). Bgwhite (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

PPUVC listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect PPUVC. Since you had some involvement with the PPUVC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Bgwhite (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External links + sister projects
Re, have a look at the second paragraph of Wikimedia_sister_projects - "at the beginning of the last section of the article (which is not necessarily the "External links" section)". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on CHiPs. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Talkback
Request to revisit the discussion. North America1000 14:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit, which included a Citation, and which replaced erroneous and uncited text, with a revert saying "Citation needed"?
The text I added had a citation. The text I replaced had no citation and was false.NobleHumanBeing (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Why did you falsely accuse me with no evidence or discussion? Please apologize
Why did you accuse me of being a sockpuppet and "Donald Trump disruption mostly", without stating any evidence?


 * You gave no evidence at all for your false accusations of WP:SP.


 * You gave no evidence at all for your false accusations of WP:DE.


 * You did not cite a single diff.


 * You never objected to any of my edits, anywhere, not on any talk page, and not in any edit summary.


 * I proposed all of my edits on the talk pages.


 * I had consensus for all of my edits.


 * All of my edits were well supported by reliable sources.


 * Out of about 200 edits with content I added, all of it is still in the articles, so no other editor has objections to any of it.


 * No editor has ever even remotely accused me of being disruptive, not on any talk page, and not on any edit summary.


 * Not a single editor (including you) ever objected to any of my edits on any Donald Trump page, and the only objection on any page was that I accidentally duplicated content once.


 * I have never had anything other than civil discussion with any editor on any talk page, and all of the discussions led to consensus and improving Wikipedia.


 * From out of the blue, citing no evidence and citing no diff, you falsely accused me of disruptive editing. Why?


 * From out of the blue, citing no evidence and no diff, you falsely accused me of WP:SP violation. Why?


 * If you object to any edit I made, why did you never discuss it on any talk page, in any edit summary, or in any way, anywhere?


 * I would ask you to please read WP:AGF, but you have not even cited a single objectionable edit of mine, for you to assume good faith with respect to.


 * Please name a single edit that was even remotely disruptive, or please withdraw your false accusations, please apologize, and please remove your doubly entered false accusations placed on my talk page and anywhere else you made them. MBUSHIstory (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

CENSORSHIP OF FACTS
I was unfairly blocked from editing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_shooting I added a reference from (https://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/fbi-will-investigate-san-bernardino-shootings-as-terrorist-act) to Islamic terrorism and was unjustly blocked from posting the truth? I will make sure this goes viral since I'm being censored from posting facts with a .gov reference supporting it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PizzazzPicasso (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. T F { Contribs } 20:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 51, 2015)
== There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ==

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MBUSHIstory (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Re your WP:Harrassment, made instead of supplying evidence that caused you to make WP:SP accusations against me. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of your edits
Your editing is being discussed here and here. MBUSHIstory (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

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

New discussion is here MBUSHIstory (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You will have to bully, harass, and lie about some other editor. I am asking that my account be closed.
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You will have to bully, harass, and lie about some other editor. I am asking that my account be closed. MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Bot automation at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement
 Greetings WikiProject TAFI members!

Over the past two weeks, there has been extensive discussion on introducing bot automation to assist with maintenance of the Today's Articles for Improvement project. A bot has now been approved for trial and will carry out the weekly duties. The bots first run will occur around 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC) (midnight on Sunday).

If you have been assisting any of the weekly maintenance tasks, please refrain from doing so this week. The bot needs to be tested and proven it can do the job, and it only gets one chance per week. The tasks will include:
 * Adding the new scheduled article to Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement and removing the entry from Articles for improvement
 * Set up the schedule pages for the new TAFI, except the adding of an image and caption
 * Adding TAFI to the new article for improvement, remove TAFI from last week's article and add Former TAFI to the talk page
 * Notify relevant WikiProjects that the new TAFI is within their scope
 * Send a mass message to everyone on the notification list of the new TAFI selection

Updating the accomplishments and archiving selections is still done manually, along with daily tasks such as adding approved entries to the articles for improvement page. These will become automated in the near future.

We hope the bot proves to serve well, and by carrying out the routine housekeeping tasks we can boost the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the project. thanks you for your service in helping with the weekly tasks in the past, and for your cooperation during this trial period :)

Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • for all project notifications