Jump to content

User talk:N4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your recent edits

[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N4, you are invited to the Teahouse

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi N4! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Laitinen

[edit]

Thank you for your kind words of advice. It is good to know that there are users out there who know how to be polite. The administrator, Gogo Dodo, was very rude and condescending to me, and gave me a false impression of the normal attitudes of Wikipedians.Lord Laitinen (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I feel the need to add that I do not think Gogo Dodo was rude or condescending. Two of the messages he left on your talk page are just standard template messages, his custom one comes across as restrained but polite. Although it's Wikipedia policy to not bite the newbies, I can understand how you're article could be perceived as a hoax. I would assume good faith, familiarize yourself with the way Wikipedia works behind the scenes, work through the introductory pages on your talk page and then begin editing. All the best. N4 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reguarding deletion proposal

[edit]

I had a good look at the Declarations of War during World War II, which I find technically well done. But why isn't World War Two linked to this "list" ? As other lists ? But more importaint - this article if full of very obvious errors. I'v proposed it for deletion, not as a vengance, but due to this indeed very poor contence. Nothing about Soviet Union vs Poland (or Finland) and not even anything of Japan vs USA December 1941 ! And they are just examples. Somehow Belgium gets involved in the war in December 1940. It also includes stuff about exile-governments. They do not belong at a list like this. A war is fought between nations (otherwise it's a civil war), and to govern a nation the primary rule for international acceptance is to have a territory of their own. "War declarations" by pure exile-governments are about encurrage the occupied civil population to resistance, "partisanism", nothing else. Infact the contence is of so low level that I doubt some kind of merging would be possible. I've however re-formatted "my" table back to how I made it myself. It has a rock solid source as base, and would argue that "my" list is complete. (Certain things in the Pacific may have been missed by the source I used. (But never ever close to missing the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour). I simply cannot comprahend the low level. Please have a comparission of Your own between these two lists. 83.249.169.66 (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boeing720. I don't actually specialize in history in any context whatsoever so I'm not the best person to speak to regarding the intellectual argument and can't advise on that. Regarding the proposed deletion, the proposal was actually made by Rwenonah, not me. I noticed he didn't let you know about it so I delivered the message on your talk page to you to let you know. I've left a message on his talk page directing him to your message above as the conversation is probably best continued with him. That said, in my opinion two articles on "declarations of War during World War II" and "all war outbreaks during World War II" deal with the same subject matter. As such, there is no need for the later article to exist as it serves no discernible purpose. As your article will likely be deleted, I'd advise you to not work on it further but please do continue editing Wikipedia. The page Declarations of War during World War II could do with further development. If you need any more help, let me know or drop into the WP:HELPDESK or WP:TEAHOUSE. All the best. N4 (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to him on the article talk page addressing most of his concerns. Sorry to involve you unnecessarily. Rwenonah (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is strange. Must assume that You are an administator. But if common editors cannot propose a deletion, wouldn't it be a better way for You, in cases of "unknown subjects" , to simply pass the suggestion further on to an other administrator that can do comparissions of the contence quality ? My deletion proposal of Declarations of War during World War II is now simply removed. Can I do the same with List of all war outbreaks during World War II (I have improved the format). Besides the latter list is intended to be a sub-article to the main article World War II. What purpose the first list actually has, as of current contence, I do not understand since it cannot be found from the WWII article. First answer from Rwenonah was (approx. "the Soviet Union attacks on Poland and Finland 1939 are not from technical perspectives wars at all !...". Based on such statements I fear that enforcing a correct list of all dates that a new state of war emerged (including if there were battles or not) might become unnessessary attempts only. Besides I do not agree in allegation that these two lists serves the same purpose, nore that they share the same contence. It is after all 1. Called for in the main article 2. Formal 3. NOP with a minimum of comments 4. Rock solid based. 5. Is an brief overview. The oher contain text enough for being an article of its own, rather than a list, and it is. I do not really see any closer likness. May I remove the deletion proposal of List of all war outbreaks during World War II ? Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really sorry to bother You again, but I have now made an attempt of improving the contence of the list Declarations of War during World War II - for the years 1939 and 1940. If they are reasonable, then I'm hopeful that the problem can be solved. Importaint, as I see it (and following the source) is that the date of when a state of war first emerged, and the basic reason (attack without a declaration of war, a declaration of war, through ultimatum or diplomatic breakdowns that led to a state of war). The deletion proposal was back, good. But I'm a bit more hopeful now. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about bothering me. I'm happy to help. First off, I am not an administrator - I'm an editor just the same as you. Second, administrators aren't all that different from editors like you and me - they don't "make the rules". The Wikipedia community is built on WP:CONSENSUS. Anyway, I see you've already deleted the deletion tag so I don't need to address that here. I've answered the above on Talk:Declarations_of_War_during_World_War_II so that other editors can add their interpretations too. All the best. N4 (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I removed the deletion proposal after a user at the talk page of article Declarations of War during World War II clearly do state that, that article doesn't cover the same issues as the "sub-article" List of all war outbreaks during World War II - but this was the reason to delete the other list... All the best to You aswell Boeing720 (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The time-line covers very much else. For a reader that is seaching for certain dates the List of all war outbreaks during World War II is needed. It's the only "sub-article"/article that describe evry date when a new state of war began, only. It's purpse is an absolute NPOV overview of all war outbreaks (weather combat followed or not) and their direct causes. The Time-line gives excess info to this overview. Besides the Lists of Mayor Battles and Mayor Operations are also covered in the time-line. So I can really not se any problem. The Declarations of War during World War II remains in very poor quality. And is not build upon a single NPOV source. But upon well chosen parts of different sources. Many listed dates of war declarations are also utterly wrong, and others has no source at all. All well Boeing720 (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as I've said before, I'm not too familiar with the actual content of the articles or WWII in general. If you really think you can make the list fly then that's your decision to make. Just be aware that without the consensus of the community (and at present myself, Rwenonah and Rmhermen are not in agreement), the article will likely be removed. N4 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added cross references from "2194 Days of War" by Cesare Salmaggi and Alfred Pallasvini, I believe them to be Italian-Americans. (Swedish ISBN is 91-582-0426-1). I do not see this as a competition against the other list. I do not even find them similar, "my" list is as NPOV that's possible. And now even better sourced. Winston Churhill wrote (during his time as opposition leader 1945-51) an encyclopedia of the war, in six volumes. I do not posses those (in Swedish or English). Anyway, I fail to see any kind of error in "my" list and I do certainly not understand why someone may think the other list cover this better. And why is it not even connected to the main article ? A concensus of three is not a lot. Are there any hurry ? I may find even further sources at the library. Boeing720 (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "your" list doesn't belong to you, "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." If the community decides to create an article, the article will be created. If the community decide to edit an article, the article will be edited. If the community decide to delete an article, the article will be deleted. Do not publish work to Wikipedia if you disagree with this.
Secondly, with regard to your "I do not see this as a competition against the other list", although I accepted this as WP:GOODFAITH when you mentioned it earlier, I am now inclined to think you do see this as even remotely competitive. Partially because you've mentioned "competition" where nobody else has but mostly because when a deletion tag was placed on List of all war outbreaks during World War II because it was too similar to Declarations of War during World War II, your earliest "move" was to place a delete tag on the latter. For a reason that isn't even in line with the deletion policy. This "if you don't have "my" article, you shouldn't have either" attitude is not constructive.
Thirdly, in regard to your "concensus of three is not a lot", consensus is not a matter of a black-and-white vote. It involves reaching a general agreement. Thus far, the only person not in agreement is you and your argument for your point of view is virtually non-existent.
Finally, looking through your user talk page, even though you've been here for months this sort of "competition" seems to be happening a lot. You don't have that good a grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines so I would really recommend you leave the page alone as it will likely be deleted regardless of whether you develop it or not. Please do continue editing Wikipedia. I've left a welcome box on your talk page and advise you read through the various guidelines and essays paying particular attention to the five pillars. Once you are more familiar with how things work and are able to edit pre-existing article comfortably, then you should consider creating articles.
All the best. N4 (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I. But ofcource I understand that no article belongs to me, I thought that was obvius, since I used "my" (with citation marks), List of all war outbreaks during World War II is a rather long phrase, isn't it ?.
II. You interprete my words "no contence" as "contence". If it had not been for the extreme poor standrard of Declarations of War during World War II list, I would accepted it. And I have tried to improve that. But neither is connected from the Word War II article and is contain a hidden agenda.
III. Three persons are not a lot.
IV. As stated before Declarations of War during World War II is not even remotly close to List of all war outbreaks during World War II, lacking very imperative dates. The illustration may be impressive but the list it self isn't. And if You are not an administrator, please stop acting as one. All the best. Boeing720 (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get the hunch you haven't listened to a thing I've said. The Declarations of War during World War II list is not at all of an "extreme poor standard" or contains a "hidden agenda". You've made no case for either of these claims. Again, you seem to misunderstand the idea of consensus and that it doesn't involve quantity of argument so much as quality. You clearly do not understand the role an administrator has in Wikipedia or the fact that they're only difference to other editors is the tools they can access. Neither do you understand that they adhere to exactly the same policies as you or I. As such I am not "acting" as an one -if you recall correctly (take a look at the first post in this thread) you came to me for help. I've advised you as best as I can. If you're not going to listen, kindly leave me alone. N4 (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Declarations of War during World War II uses too many various sources, and do not stand on any solid base. Missing even formal Declarations of war. I see no point in having a list that excludes the Soviet Union attacks on Poland and Finland and the attack on Pear Harbour. The List of all war outbreaks during World War II do include all mentioned events. It has now dubble sourcing reg. all mayor events. This is indeed quality. Your meaasges are displayed in my mail list. Hence it's very difficult to avoid You. And I have only responded to Your messages, not the otherway around. Boeing720 (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a request for comment on the article's talk page to get other opinions and find consensus. I'll now leave this issue in more capable hands. N4 (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason for creating the list, was that I could not find any such list. User Factor01 thought that Germany was "attacked too often", a bit strange since others point out that the list doesn't cover late overseas (Latin America) war declarations against Germany. I have listened to all Your appriciated advices. But my first attempt to improve the "Declarations of war" article failed, I could not agree to the idea that "List of war outbreaks" was a fork. However now, not only I , but others have improved the "Declaration of war" list. This makes everyting different. That list is now up to standard, including hostilities by the Soviet Union aswell as Pearl Harbour etc. I'm truely sorry that You got angry with me (in the end). Now the "Declarations of war" is of good standard and I have already removed "List of outbreaks" from main WWII article, replacing it with "Declarations of war". As a result of all this, I actually believe that we have improved Wikipedia. I also hope that You now see that my use of phrase "my" article not at all reflected to anything else than avoiding the long title. I do appriciate Your efforts in this case. (And the list "List of outbreaks" can indeed be erased, now. I pu no pride in any matters, I only am searching for the NPOV truth) Best reguards Boeing720 (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get angry with you. I've been indifferent throughout. From where I stood, the article you made was snowing and there wasn't much chance of it surviving discussion. I thought it'd be best to go through the process to confirm that now rather than in two weeks time when you would have invested a lot more time in it. Again, please 'do keep editing Wikipedia and take a look at the five pillars page- it's probably the most helpful page we've got. N4 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well - if the "other list" had not been improved, then I cannot agree that the lists were similar in contence. Remember I made an attempt improving "the other" article, but all nwas reverted and with comments that actually stated that it was a list of different kind - the article should only certain declarations of wars. But that's history now. My struggle wasn't about the list, but its contence. Name of article or list is of secondary matter in cases like this. That is my point of view, atleast. I won't argue any more but I have red the five pillars more than once before. Cheers ! Boeing720 (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 On

[edit]

Feel free to try again - but you can't A7 a record (and A9 is out because the performer has an article here). I'd advise prodding for non-notability. A7 is people, groups of people, named animals, web content and organised events (but presumable not disorganised events). A9 is for non-notable recordings where the performer has no article - it's a two part criterion (an 'AND' not an 'OR'). Peridon (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. N4 (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of X-Men members

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of X-Men members. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indicator vector

[edit]

Unless you can explain how this is a hoax, I'd rather just redirect it. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a hoax. I used the wrong tag. Sorry! N4 (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd go along with that! Bearian (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the db-tag and plan to add sources, which were easily found. Please be careful with speedy deletion tags. DES (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

[edit]
Don't stress out, We all make errors with tags. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of Deadliest Warrior episodes

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Deadliest Warrior episodes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on List of all war outbreaks during World War II: Does the article serve a discernible purpose?

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article was proposed for deletion for being too similar to Declarations of War during World War II. The deletion was removed by the article's creator who then tagged Declarations of War during World War II for deletion instead. This article is a WP:CONTENTFORK containing information largely available elsewhere, especially at the Outline of World War II#Timeline of World War II articles. Quality issues aside, is this page redundant or does it serve a discernible purpose for which the subject needs an article? N4 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Proposal: This article is redundant, any useful aspects of this article should be merged with pre-existing articles and this page should be nominated for deletion.

 Please do not add threaded replies to the survey section. This will make the RfC easier to read for the editor who closes it, which is especially important for RfCs that attract a lot of responses.

After the mayor improvements of Declarations of War during World War II I have now changed my mind. Here I just want to add that when I first attempted to improve that list, encuggaged by user N4, everything soon was reverted. But I do agree that as of now List of all war outbreaks during World War II do no longer serve any purpose that cannot just as easy can be found at previously mentioned list, and hence the list should be erased. Boeing720 (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

[edit]

Consensus

[edit]

It's clearly snowing. I've taken the article to AfD. N4 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please comment on Talk:Unapologetic

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Unapologetic. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

[edit]

The reversion was completely unintentional. I think my weekend's purchases are going to have to include a new trackball: I seem to be making unintentional clicks.—Kww(talk) 05:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much when I saw that there wasn't an obvious reason for the revert. Don't worry about it. It happens to everyone! N4 (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics

[edit]

I read your comments about aggression, but I wondered if you could give me a specific example, because while I don't exactly 100% disagree, I also feel that several others have been equally as aggressive, yet they are not called-out. I really want to learn what it is that you are talking about, so I wondered if you could give me an example or two of comments that were too aggressive. To me, I am passionately arguing my side as many others do, and I often feel that others are being equally aggressive toward me. What's the difference? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that others are also being aggressive- I too feel that they're aggressiveness is uncalled for. The only reason I "called you out" as such is because you are the creator of the article. I feel that your aggressiveness as the creator of the article indicates a lack of neutrality and feels that lack of neutrality needs to be noted in the deletion discussions. I have replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimi Hendrix: Canadian drug charges and trial too. Take it easy! N4 (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm trying to learn, but I am having trouble seeing the difference in how people address me and how I address them. I don't want to be aggressive, but I am not the only Wikipedia who argues there points passionately. Are you sure you can't give me a specific example of where I went too far? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it'd be appropriate to give a specific example. What I can say is that when you comment so passionately on an AfD about an article you created, it does come across as being aggressive. The sheer volume of "you" on the AfD is such that more understated editors stating their "keep" or "delete" opinion have their argument overshadowed. There are many independent editors that may have fair knowledge to contribute to the discussion that decide not to as they perceive in advance that they're opinion will come under unwarranted attack- I nearly decided not to contribute my own interpretation as I thought my argument would be ignored but decided to contribute as I feel a particular reverence for Hendrix's life and work. As it happens, my hunch that my argument would be overshadowed was true- it wasn't until my third reply on the article that someone (you, I believe) argued against the actual content of my first comment. Now, your user page indicates you are a respected editor. You have contributed to and created many quality articles. I believe that instead of "passionately (or aggressively) arguing" in favor of an article you created, it'd be much healthier for both the community and the project if you were to leave it to uninvolved editors (who will no doubt pick up on your previous quality contributions to Wikipedia) to reach a consensus between themselves. That way, the opinions expressed are truly reached in a calm and balanced manner. Take care. N4 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks. I think that's good advice in general, but I can't promise that I won't comment there again. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:A Beautiful Mind (film)

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:A Beautiful Mind (film). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Brooklyn Bridge

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Brooklyn Bridge. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of former child actors from the United States

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of former child actors from the United States. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm Gaia Octavia Agrippa. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Ukrainian Revolution of 2014, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure how that happened. My bad! N4 (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of discussion at Talk:February 2014 Euromaidan clashes

[edit]

i was over selective and biased? i just copied and pasted quotes so i wouldnt have to just keep scrolling up! --Львівське (говорити) 18:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. The archive was followed immediately by Norden1990's comments so I assumed it was compiled by him and would be biased as such. If you feel the need to, please do restore it, however, seeing as we now have a new discussion in motion, I'm not too sure what the advantage to the archive returning. Take care. N4 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Universal Everything

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Universal_Everything

The page has been substantially rewritten, with proper referencing, multiple sources and addition of 'notability'.

Please advise on approval.

[edit]

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.

Grosvenor UK Poker Tour
added links pointing to Stockton, Reading and Newcastle
Genting Poker Series
added links pointing to Reading and Newcastle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Ankit Love

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ankit Love. 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. MB190417 (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: The Opium Cartel

[edit]

Hello N4, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Opium Cartel, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: founded by notable musician, release music on notable label. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. SoWhy 13:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Chinez balloobo

[edit]

2023 Chinez balloobo? was this a typo? 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DinoSoupCanada: I hope not - this was the most hilarious thing I've seen on wiki in a while. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lol 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chinez and balloobo aren't even words, it's almost like a five year old attempted to type Chinese and balloons! Sahapamowe (talk!) 18:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:N4&oldid=1143186525"