User talk:DN-boards1

Welcome!

Hello, DN-boards1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jonathunder (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor of Byzance

Hello,

You've edited two articles and gave a misleading sources for both. This could be considered as vandalism.

The fact that a "new" user like you knows very well Wikipedia's rules is dubious and I suspect a sock-puppet from a ban user. Blaue Max (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Abune Dioskros, Patriarch of Eritrean Orthodox Church.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Abune Dioskros, Patriarch of Eritrean Orthodox Church.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amoebozoa

Hi, DN-boards1. I undid your recent edit to Amoebozoa. Your edit to the taxobox left the hierarchy with a Phylum Amoebozoa (for which the authority was Thomas Cavalier-Smith) directly under a Kingdom of the same name, which is unacceptable nomenclature in any system of classification (no two taxa in a hierarchy can share a name). As you may know, Wikipedia does not subscribe to any taxonomic standard. As a result, taxa are frequently given different ranks in different articles. It can be confusing, but there are no easy solutions to the problem, unfortunately. I do not know of any classification system in which Amoebozoa appears as a Kingdom, although one might exist (no authority is given in the Life article, so it is not much help). In any case, the two systems most commonly used by contemporary protist systematists are those of Cavalier-Smith (in which Amoebozoa is a Phylum under Kingdom Protozoa) and Adl et al, 2012, in which Amoebozoa is an unranked high-level group (ISOP and the co-authors of Adl et al. dispense with ranks for all higher level groups).

That said, the lead to the Amoebozoa article is potentially confusing. When I have time, I'll edit it to provide a bit more context. In a recent edit to Talk:Amoebozoa there was a request for clarification of the use of the word "amoeba" in the article, and I'll address that as well. Deuterostome (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:TNO 1996 TL66.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TNO 1996 TL66.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JorisvS (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:TNO 2002 MS4.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TNO 2002 MS4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JorisvS (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TNO 1996 TL66.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TNO 1996 TL66.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 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) 17:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

L235 has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smallpox

It doesn't make much difference to me one way or the other (I won't revert or debate the semantics), but just for the sake of clarity your statement "It is gone. ERADICATED, GONE. It is no longer possible for someone to catch it. It is no longer alive or capable of spreading" is not true. There are viable stocks of the virus in the US and USSR and is it conceivable that someone could catch it. The US government is even spending money to guard against a smallpox outbreak. The Strategic National Stockpile is currently acquiring antiviral drugs to treat smallpox as insurance against an outbreak. Deli nk (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hydrostatic equilibrium category

Iapetus is indeed not in HE (it's too oblate for its current spin, IIRC), but neither are Dione, Tethys, Enceladus, and Mimas. They all probably were in the past. But they are at least still roundish, unlike Phoebe which was much more heavily battered up. (And if Iapetus isn't in HE, there's no reason to think the smaller Haumea and Makemake are, either, nor any of the moons apart from the Moon, the Galileans, Titan, Rhea, Titania, and Triton.) I think "gravitationally rounded" is a more useful (not to mention easier to verify) category. Double sharp (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IAU has stated they are in hydrostatic equilibrium. If they weren't they would not be classified as dwarf planets. We must go on what we have, and it appears that those two are indeed in HE. DN-boards1 (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IAU only classified Haumea and Makemake as dwarf planets because their H values were so low that they could be reasonably certain of HE at that time: they did not know their HE status for certain. And more importantly, that was given what we then knew on icy-body HE (when we thought Iapetus and friends were actually in HE). They are nevertheless only possible DPs, and the IAU has said that if it should turn out that they are not in HE, they will be reclassified but will keep their names.

And with regards to objects like Chariklo etc.: if you're going to include those, you need to add possibly. Double sharp (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. ABCDEFAD_✉ 15:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War on s2009s1

I feel that it is important to document the claim to the moonlet and i wrote it from a neutral point of view not confirming nor denying it so it should stay on the page. Its not going to help to go back and forth and you are going to break the 3rr rule soon so lets just talk about it Wikiwriter82015 (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Ceres (dwarf planet) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ceres. Do not make cut/paste moves! You were told above why it's not allowed. Use WP:Requested moves if you wish the article renamed, Favonian (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres move request

Just FYI, I have converted your request at Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)#Requested move 30 July 2015 to a double move. I hope this is indeed what you intended. Favonian (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planemo

Please read planemo so you understand what the word means before edit-warring over categorizing small irregular moons "planemos".

And Celestia constructions aren't evidence for anything. — kwami (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mars, you may be blocked from editing. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Incurable and invariably fatal diseases

Category:Incurable and invariably fatal diseases, 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. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rosetta 67P212.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rosetta 67P212.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 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) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

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.

Pharos Crater

added links pointing to Crater and Pharos

Zethus Crater

added a link pointing to Crater

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enceladus Explorer

Hello. I looked in Google extensively and I have not been able to find a source stating that Enceladus Explorer has passed from a proposal to a planned mission. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction? Thank you for your help. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I am sorry for the reverts in several missions, but it seems there is a confusion. When a proposal is funded to mature the concept and technologies, it remains a proposal. When the mission is funded for full development and launch, then it becomes a "future" or "planned" mission. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"American" Ivory-billed woodpecker

I see that you've moved Ivory-billed woodpecker to American ivory-billed woodpecker. Can you link me to the discussion giving the rationale for this? Geogene (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've also moved "Geography of Mars" to "Areography of Mars". Please read WP:COMMONNAME, and quit the unilateral moves. Geogene (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no such discussion. The Cuban ivory-billed woodpecker has its own article. The American Ivory-billed woodpecker is the main focus of that article, hence its move. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do you have calling it the "American ivory-billed woodpecker"? Geogene (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The particular subspecies is called the American Ivory-billed woodpecker, which appears to be the focus of the article (that subspecies). DN-boards1 (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, C. principalis principalis is the nominate race, and retains the common name Ivory-billed woodpecker. The Cuban subspecies(?) gets a name change to differentiate it, the original doesn't. Also, all bird common names in the region are officially controlled by the American Ornithologists' Union, so there's no need to coin new names for WP purposes. Geogene (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Life on Mercury

An article that you have been involved in editing—Life on Mercury —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Savonneux (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chang'e 2 moon base hoax for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chang'e 2 moon base hoax 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chang'e 2 moon base hoax 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. --Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite)^{i've made a huge mess} 23:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better places for habitability speculation

I understand if you feel kind of attacked right now, with everyone nominating and supporting your articles for merging. I'm sorry if this is the case, but please understand that the arguments against breaking out "Life on..." articles for every potentially habitable body are strong and policy-based. If you want to add this content to Wikipedia, I found two perfect places: Habitability of natural satellites and Extraterrestrial life#Planetary habitability in the Solar System. If you do contribute to these articles, try not to duplicate content that is already present and make sure to note that some of the speculation is very much a minority view per WP:NPOV. Good luck, and sorry for the trouble with your articles. A2soup (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced new articles

You have started creating articles about newly-discovered features on Pluto. The couple I have looked at have no sources, and it is not clear that we will need articles about these until more information, published papers etc are available. Even then there would need to be something that could not be covered in more general Geology of Pluto or List of whatever on Pluto articles. Please stop creating any more such articles at least until the results of the inevitable deletion discussions on the first few are known. --Mirokado (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Columbia Colles for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Columbia Colles 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Colles 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. Savonneux (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Al-Idrisi Montes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Al-Idrisi Montes 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Idrisi Montes 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. Savonneux (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FRINGE

Ask yourself why are you getting so many messages to cut down on your fringe `contributions`. As for life on Venus, what do you think is most likely to produce the carbonyl sulphide, the vast volcanism on Venus or little green men. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? Let me point out the many flaws in your statement:

-THERE ARE NO ACTIVE VOLCANOES, AND THERE HAVE BEEN NONE FOR 2.5 MILLION YEARS. -Carbonyl sulfide is considered on Venus a good indicator of organic life. -"Vast volcanism"? Maat Mons is suspected to be putting out ash, but that's it. That's the only activity. Not even an eruption. -Little green men? Are you seriously mocking the field of astrobiology? We are not looking for little green men. We are looking for microbial life in the solar system, hopefully shrimp-like or fish-like organisms at best on Europa, and intelligent life outside our solar system. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to make carbonyl sulfide when all the volcanoes are dead and have been for 2 million years and no hydrothermal vents? The idea that life on Venus is somehow "fringe" is completely ludicrous, an insult to the field of astrobiology. Your tone is that of one who mocks the field. Someone who is not open-minded at all. I realize Gillevinia straata was fringe, but the idea of life on Venus is far from fringe. It has evidence to back it up. Where life HAS a chance to develop, it will. Venus's clouds, those subsurface oceans on icy planemos, Titan, Mars - all are places that life could thrive. And if there's one thing we've learned from biology on Earth, it's one thing, to quote Ian Malcom: "Life finds a way." The idea that there is nothing else besides Earth in the solar system with life is ludicrous. We know of sulfur-using bacteria on Earth. How is it not possible for similar life to exist in Venus's clouds? It is insulting. And the attitude you've taken - merging Life on Enceladus and Europa, the two likeliest places besides Venus and Mars to have life - is that comparable to deletionists. The problem with Wikipedia is not that of deletionists vs. inclusionists. It's splitists vs. mergists, and I'm a splitist. Astrobiology regarding Venus is NOT fringe. DN-boards1 (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that only one scientist speculates this, qualifies as WP:FRINGE, which must be cleaned up. You barely placed it in Life on Venus article, and there is no way you will SPAM dozens Wikipedia articles with that same link. By the way, did you read carbonyl sulphide or did you get your info from the Enquirer? With all the time you spend in WP, why do it in disruptive ways and in fringe garbage? Do you understand the difference between a scientific hypothesis and speculation????? BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One scientist? I think you've got your facts wrong. Off the top of my head, I can name David Grinspoon, G.A. Landis, David Darling, Dr Schulze-Malkuch, and there are likely many others. Carbonyl sulfide is known to catalyze the formation of peptides from amino acids, and is thought to play a role in the origin of life. Spam? What? I understand the difference between a hypothesis and speculation. At this point you have descended into attacks on me. In the carbonyl sulfide article itself, it says its presence in Venus's atmosphere is a possible indicator of life. You have needlessly attacked me and called me fringe. You've thrown insults at me such as "did you get your info from the Enquirer?" and called my edits "disruptive" and "fringe garbage". It is exceptionally unprofessional for you to throw such insults at me, and I am highly offended. DN-boards1 (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who quotes David Darling with a straight face does not deserve my time. Good luck. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly explain that insult to me. Is there some work by David Darling that I am not aware of that is fringe? What is the purpose of the insult? Legitimately, what is the insult? Explain your statement. If it comes to light that Darling is fringe, I will not quote him. Just point out what part is fringe. I've been exposed to his work in the Worlds of David Darling and We Are Not Alone, that is all. Has he written something else that I should be aware of that discredits him? DN-boards1 (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DN-boards1, it would help if you cited peer-reviewed review articles or books written by well established scientists when inserting material about controversial ideas that there is or could plausibly be life on this or that planet. Self-published articles or publicity articles with speculation put out by agencies and popular press articles citing those publicity articles are not generally reliable sources for controversial and technical subjects. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE:The idea that there is nothing else besides Earth in the solar system with life is ludicrous. --> WP:BALL Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation.
RE:The problem with Wikipedia... --> WP:PERMASTUB All or most aspects of the subject are already covered in other articles--Savonneux (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which do you think is more likely: that vulcanism went on for 99.95% of Venus' history, and stopped dead just a second ago geologically, or that vulcanism is ongoing and so far we've missed it? — kwami (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that volcanism is ongoing, but thus far only Maat Mons is known to be erupting. That's just one volcano. It's entirely possible that both life and volcanism are responsible for the carbonyl sulfide, and the volcanism does not explain the presence of both hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere, which should not be there together (due to the reactions that take place when they are together), and the deficiency in carbon monoxide. There should be more carbon monoxide than there IS. It may be that something is converting CO to CO2, producing more carbonyl sulfide, and replenishing the supply of hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide, in addition to the volcanism. The likely answer is twofold - yes, there is microbial life in the atmosphere, no, it is not the sole source of the carbonyl sulfide. Thus far, only Maat Mons is known to be erupting. The source of carbonyl sulfide appears to be two sources: life and volcanism. It is not an "either/or" scenario. Both explanations are valid, both could be responsible. But notice that Mars is geologically dead. Olympus Mons is extinct, as is all the other volcanoes. The only known active volcano on Venus is Maat Mons. All other Veneran volcanoes appear to have ceased activity 2.5 million years ago. We don't know everything about Venus yett. More will certainly be revealed when Akatsuki and Venera-D arrive. That will hopefully give us an answer. For now, speculation is allowable - we don't know whether or not life is responsible for part of the mysteries of Venus's atmosphere or not. But there is room for speculation. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is. But this isn't the place for it. We report what RSs say, giving appropriate weight to speculation according to its coverage in RSs. — kwami (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the nth. time: carbonyl sulfide is NOT a biosignature. I understand ONE scientist published that as a speculation for Venus, so it stays in that article; co simply cannot spam Wikipedia with the fringe things you keep finding in the internet. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DPs

I sympathize with frustration that a DP is allegedly a body in HE, but in practice is s.t. that the IAU declares to be a DP. If we were source-orientated rather than authority-orientated, we would include bodies that Brown or Tancredi say are DPs. But that does not mean that every body that looks a little round is a "likely" DP, esp. when RS's say they are clearly not in HE. Your edit wars over inserting your WP:OWNRESEARCH into WP are only going to get you blocked. — kwami (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Johnnie Lee

Hello DN-boards1,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Johnnie Lee for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Life on Mercury for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Life on Mercury 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life on Mercury 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. A2soup (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3RR at Pluto

Your recent editing history at Pluto shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly..

Please bring your edits to the talk page, although your claim that "practically everyone" considers Charon a dwarf planet is contradicted by sources in both the Pluto and Charon articles. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 19:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amoebozoa not a kingdom

Hi, thanks for the well-meaning edit to Amoebozoa. However, Amoebozoa is not a kingdom. The group was erected as a phylum (Luhe 1913, emend. Thomas Cavalier-Smith, 1998). I don't know of any modern system of classification in which the group is ranked as a kingdom (see Wikispecies for an aggregate view of different classifications). In Ruggiero et al, 2015, it appears as a phylum under Kingdom Protozoa, and in some other systems (such as Adl et al, 2012) it features as an unranked supergroup. Historically, it has almost always been ranked as a phylum.

In any case, your edit left phylum Amoebozoa in place, which is a nomenclatural error (two groups in a hierarchy cannot have the same name). So, I'm going to revertthe edit, and remove the category link as well, unless you have a reason to object.

In the previous version of the page, Amoebozoa was situated beneath Cavalier-Smith's unranked taxon Unikonta. However, that supergroup is obsolete (see Adl et al, 2012), and TC-S himself seems to have stopped using it. Ideally, I think these high-level groups should be unranked, as in the system used by the International Society of Protistologists. However, since there is no consensus to adopt that system (or any other, for that matter), the least disruptive option seems to be to replace "Kingdom Amoebozoa" with "Kingdom Protozoa," per Ruggiero et al. Deuterostome (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Alpha Centauri Bc for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alpha Centauri Bc 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Centauri Bc 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. Primefac (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhatola

Hi DN,

If you know of this language, please publish your evidence or send it to Ethnologue. They're having the ISO code retired. Glottolog also says the language is spurious. Meanwhile we go by sources, and if our sources say it doesn't exist, then we can't very well say it does exist. — kwami (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda

Hi,

Thank you for your edit on Brenda's article. I followed the case for some time while she remained a Jane Doe and I was very pleased when she was finally identified. I had planned on renaming the page as soon as reliable sources confirmed the body was hers (like that of Holly Glynn's), but it has yet to happen. I hope that there isn't any future problems with the lack of reliable sources confirming this information. Cheers! --GouramiWatcher^(?) 03:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revived languages

Revived languages still count as extinct, as what was revived was not the original language. Ancient Hebrew, for example, is extinct; Modern Hebrew is a different language. — kwami (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Fejokoo (crater)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Fejokoo (crater), DN-boards1!

Wikipedia editor BeowulfBrower just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Hope to read more about it soon

To reply, leave a comment on BeowulfBrower's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Planetar (astronomy)

Hey look. This [1] is disruptive, considering that there was consensus that that article should be a redirect ( see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetar (astronomy)). Also, you shouldn't just copy-paste content from one article to another, as you did from Planet, which you moved to some other redirect you recreated (there's a few of them now), see WP:COPYWITHIN. These are huge changes you're making unilaterally, in some cases defying established consensus. I think you should quit messing with redirects and focus on adding properly sourced content to articles. Otherwise I may need to report it as disruption, because fixing this mess is tedious. Geogene (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unsourced BLP claims

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

For this [2]. Geogene (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Geogene (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

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.

List of geological features on Proteus

added a link pointing to Pharos

List of geological features on Umbriel

added a link pointing to Setebos

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prime meridians

Category:Prime meridians, 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. DexDor^(talk) 19:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Malee (elephant)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Malee (elephant) 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, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, 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. --Finngall ^talk 21:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_solar_system_extremes

tell me what's the problem. Huritisho (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The North Polar Basin is FAR bigger than the South Pole-Aitken Basin. It covers almost all of Mars's northern hemisphere. DN-boards1 (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok. Just remember that you have to add the references. Also, write an edit summary. You added an info with a reference but it appeared as you reverted me. Huritisho (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. And just FYI, the only ones that have a dab are Ceres (dwarf planet), Eris (dwarf planet), and Mercury (planet). The others just have their names. And you can make it display alternate text by doing [[Example 1|Example 2]], which will show as Example 2. DN-boards1 (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move from Christine Weston Chandler to Draft:Christine Weston Chandler

Hello DN-boards1,

I just wanted to inform you that I have moved your article from the mainspace to the Draft namespace from Christine Weston Chandler to Draft:Christine Weston Chandler. If you're wondering why I moved your article, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability or leave a note on my talk page, and I would be happy to address any questions, comments, or concerns you would have. Happy editing! --JustBerry (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JustBerry: I told DN-boards1 a thousand times in the past to add references to his edits, but it just doesn't freaking work. I gave up Huritisho 23:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a she, and the thing is...all the references are not RSes. We basically have as sources 4chan, 8chan, and Encyclopedia Dramatica, plus a few sites here and there, but the thing is...THEY ALL ATTACK HER. That's the problem, there are plenty of references, they're just not NPOV references...DN-boards1 (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huritisho: Chatting with DN-boards1 over IRC right now... --JustBerry (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

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.

Tsewang Paljor

added links pointing to Sherpa and First Step

Johanna Booyson

added a link pointing to Hannah Smith

Mae Harrington

added a link pointing to Posthumous

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-pasting from one article to another

There's an obscure rule (found at WP:COPYWITHIN) that says when you copy content from one article to another, you should say so and mention it an edit summary, with a link to the source article. You can do this later with a dummy edit, as I've done here [3], but it does need to be done. Apparently this is required so that the contribution history of an article is linked to the article text. Unfortunately I may be mistaken with this particular instance because I see that you page-moved Annapurna to Annapurna I Main and then @Isambard Kingdom: tried to undo the move by copy-pasting text back into the article. Some thoughts on this situation:

Best just not to copy-paste move a whole page.
If there's a redirect page left behind from a move, the only way to undo that move is to ask an admin to do it. There's a noticeboard for that kind of thing.
If you're moving part of a page somewhere else, always include a link to the origin page in an edit summary in the destination page.
This is one of those obscure rules they don't tell you about until you break it.

There's a lot of articles now that need these disclaimers. Geogene (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for notifying me about that rule, I'd never have known of it. DN-boards1 (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charon (moon)

I know what I'm doing, ok? Just give me some time to work. Thanks Huritisho 00:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sailor Moon articles

Hello, DN-boards1. You have new messages at Lord Opeth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I replied again.--LoЯd ۞pεth 21:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Antonio Urrea-Hernández

A tag has been placed on Antonio Urrea-Hernández requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. Geogene (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civility warning

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Anne D'Evergroote. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Your latest edit summary there, as well as others in your history are unacceptable. Please remain civil when engaging with other users and keep in mind that Wikipedia is built upon consensus. Since several editors have found your contributions to be controversial, now would be a good time to start discussing your edits instead of edit warring. Canadian Paul 17:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you have chosen to ignore my suggestion that you act civilly towards other editors, but I am going to make two more suggestions anyways: do not edit war on pages where multiple (or even one, for that matter) other editors disagree with your actions and stop creating articles that lack sources/clear evidence of notability (based not your personal opinion of what is notable, but on the basis of Wikipedia's notability criteria. In regards to edit warring, you have broken the three-revert rule at least once (and since there are discretionary sanctions on longevity-related articles, technically there is a one-revert rule in effect, which you have broken on multiple occasions); I have chosen not to report you, however, because I am hoping that it will be more productive to bring you into a discussion with other editors so that you can understand our concerns about notability. In regards to the creation of new articles, since community consensus has determined that most of these articles do not meet notability requirements, you should address their concerns by either discussing it with the community or by providing reliable sources upon creation (your opportunity to demonstrate notability comes when you (re)create the article, not at some unspecified time in the future). Many of the articles that you have (re)created were explicitly deleted or redirected in the past through an AfD process and could simply be re-deleted without discussion. Again, the only reason that this is not being done is because it is hoped that creating a deletion discussion will a) help reaffirm community consensus and b) demonstrate to you why these individuals are unsuitable for Wikipedia (often people have different ways of explaining things, and that can be beneficial).

I think a good path forward here would be to assume good faith about the editors here who disagree with you and work with them to understand why these articles you are creating are not notable (or demonstrate to us that they are). Show that good faith by engaging in discussion, treating editors with civility, and abstaining from edit warring. I think the main thing to understand is that notability is not a wholly subjective concept - it is not based upon your personal criteria on what should be notable. Instead, it is based on the general principles at WP:N, which state that, in order for a topic to be considered notable, there must be multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable, third party sources. The GRG can be one source, but it cannot be the only source, particularly if it just mentions the existence and basic data about the individual (that would be considered trivial coverage). Personal websites and internet forums are not reliable sources, per the guidelines at WP:RS, because they have no editorial oversight. Statistical records do not provide non-trivial coverage either.

Everyone here is happy to work with you on articles, but consensus has determined on multiple occasions that these individuals are simply not notable by the standards of the encyclopedia. Edit warring and incivility towards other editors will not accomplish your goals, but uncovering and presenting sources that demonstrate non-subjective notability just might. Canadian Paul 23:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Glockner is notable for other reasons, primarily for being the last veteran of the Franco-Prussian War. DN-boards1 (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is your subjective judgment. It has nothing to do with the criteria listed at WP:N. Canadian Paul 23:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Canadian Paul 00:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:DN-boards1/Augustine Tessier

User:DN-boards1/Augustine Tessier, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DN-boards1/Augustine Tessier and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:DN-boards1/Augustine Tessier during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DN-boards1/Augustine Tessier

Sorry I had to speedy delete the copy of the article in your userspace. I gave some advice in the MfD, essentially you can continue to work on the article during the AfD. If the article is deleted you can ask the deleting admin to undelete it and copy it history and all to your userspace. That way if it does get up to inclusion standards everyone will get attribution. HighInBC 01:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Oldest people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Shigechiyo Izumi, you may be blocked from editing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked this account for three reasons. First, it is very clearly an undisclosed alternate account. New accounts do not have editing patterns like yours, and there is no evidence this falls within the permitted uses of alternate accounts. Second, your edit summaries are combative and display obvious battleground conduct. Third, the reason for making this alternate account appears to be to end-run round consensus on a specific group of articles. Please go back to your original account and follow due process if you want those articles back. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a former sockpuppeteer, I used to be User:Horrifico. I don't have an account to go back TO. DN-boards1 (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DN-boards1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm the current account of User:Horrifico. I don't have an account to go back TO, I'm not an alt account. DN-boards1 (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Then you are engaging in block evasion. I suggest you go at least six months without block evasion and then try using your original blocked account to ask for the standard offer. As long as you evade the block though you will not be welcome back. HighInBC 21:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DN-boards1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I cannot request, as my talk page editing was disabled on that account. DN-boards1 (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See below. "Evading scrutiny", ie hiding the "bad history", is among the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts. Also, WP:SO. Huon (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You can request at WP:UTRS, but again per the standard offer you need to take some time off without evading your block. HighInBC 21:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too attached to this account, though. I don't WANT my old account back, too much bad history. DN-boards1 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP you were using to evade your block: 104.56.23.57. Your protest that you happened to stumble upon a discussion notwithstanding, your editing pattern there is pretty obvious. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About 6 weeks ago I reported DN-boards1 to be a sock puppet. I am glad he pissed off an administrator bad enough to look into it. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a she, @BatteryIncluded:. DN-boards1 (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DN-boards1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I propose that the block be converted to a topic ban on all longevity-related articles, broadly construed. I am free to edit other subjects as long as I do not break civility rules. If I DO break civility rules, the block will be restored. DN-boards1 (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block was also for sockpuppetry and evading a block; proposing a topic ban does not address the original issue. Per several long standing users below, there is no consensus or policy based reason to unblock you at this time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In addition, I should be able to comment on my own SPI. DN-boards1 (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked by Maggie for Block evasion using the IP, Special:Contribs/104.56.23.57. You then evaded your block with Special:Contribs/2602:306:8381:7390:C091:2760:198B:C94. You also created a false story claiming to have no relation between the IP with your account on the grounds that the IP is a library. It is evidently false. Well, Voting twice is not allowed. Elockid^(BOO!) 03:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I implore the administrators to not lift the block on this user. His/her actions and edits have always been a constant defiance to the spirit of Wikipedia and to the concept of no POV. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Cheers,

BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto DN-boards1. Sorry to see you get blocked. I did not agree with you wanting to call everything visually spherical a dwarf planet. I did note that you had a tendency to triple revert multiple editors that did not agree with your edits. You can try and fight consensus when support is mostly split, but when the vote is going say 2 to 5, it is time to shrug your shoulders and move-on to the next article. -- Kheider (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case opened

Comments from page watchers are encouraged [4]. Geogene (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to inform you, @Geogene:, that you're wasting your time. None of those are me. DN-boards1 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ferdinand Ashmall for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ferdinand Ashmall 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferdinand Ashmall 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of South Summit (Everest)

The article South Summit (Everest) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced paragraph; insufficient material for a separated page when Mount Everest could easily absorb this.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 16:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of South Summit (Everest) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article South Summit (Everest) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Summit (Everest) 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682:, you know I am unable to participate in an AfD as I am blocked. DN-boards1 (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the way the discussion is going, I don't think you're needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682:, so it's in no danger of deletion? DN-boards1 (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew it so no, no danger anymore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A request to Cullen328

I'm removing this again. You are a blocked sock puppet. Your Talk page is for making an unblock request or discussing your block, not for editing Wikipedia through other editors. If you re-add this request or anything like it, your Talk page access will be revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bbb23, for responding succinctly as an administrator in a way that I would have had to explain at much greater length.

I am happy to have helped expand and save South Summit (Everest) because I believe the topic to be notable. But I am not an "edit on request" service for blocked editors. I will collaborate any time with editors in good standing. So, your goal right now is to get unblocked. Convince an administrator (I am not one) that you are here solely to improve (not disrupt) the encyclopedia, and then we can work together. Until then, no thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DN-boards1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The blocking was based on the assumption I was a sockpuppet. There had been no evidence collected to prove I was an SP at the time, so it was not an allowed action. There was no discussion, and I was promptly blocked with no evidence that I was a sockpuppet at the time. I had in fact previously mentioned I was a sockpuppet, but I had not disclosed of whom. So you blocked me on grounds that were not grounds for a block, and violated policy. Therefore, I request an unblock. I was unable to do the standard offer, as my talk page had been disabled on my previous account. DN-boards1 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Self admitted sock puppet. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DN-boards1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Self-admitted sockpuppet is not always grounds for a block. The person who blocked me originally did not assume good faith, and had no evidence to support at the time that I was a sockpuppet. They assumed bad faith rather than good, did not give me a chance to explain myself, and blocked me. They went against the spirit of Wikipedia, and plenty of users are self-admitted sockpuppets. The difference between me and, say, a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels? I have good intentions, and mean no ill harm, simply wishing to contribute to the site. In contrast, the Willy on Wheels sockpuppet will have bad intentions, will cause great harm, and will typically attempt to move the first page that comes up when he clicks "Random article" to "[title of page] ON WHEELS!". If you had to pick between letting me or the WoW sockpuppet stay, which would you pick? In addition, my old account had in fact been compromised - I have lost the password to Horrifico. Even if I wanted to, I could not log into Horrifico. In brief, I should be unblocked because I wish to contribute to the encyclopedia, and always have. I have not committed a single act of vandalism on this account. The reviewer of this request I hope will assume good faith. DN-boards1 (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Self-admitted sockpuppetry is always grounds for a block. You can appeal your block through WP:UTRS if you don't have access to your original account. HighInBC 00:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've revoked your Talk page access. You may appeal through WP:UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Alpha Centauri Bc for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alpha Centauri Bc 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Centauri Bc (2nd nomination) 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. jps (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comets with aphelia greater than 1000 AU has been nominated for deletion

Category:Comets with aphelia greater than 1000 AU has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of C/2012 S4 (PanSTARRS) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article C/2012 S4 (PanSTARRS) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C/2012 S4 (PanSTARRS) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

C messier (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Venus trojans has been nominated for merging

Category:Venus trojans has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]