User talk:Red Icarus of Jakarta

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hi, I'm Oiyarbepsy and I can see fairies.

Welcome and thank you for joining and editing Wikipedia. I would like to personally welcome you here and hope that you decide to keep contributing.

If you have any questions, please click this link, then hit the new section and rock and roll. I really like to pretend to know what I'm doing here, so I'm sure I'll give you the right answer, and if I don't, you can whack me with a trout.

Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is not an automated bot that placed this message. Yes, it is boilerplate, but it won't appear anywhere if I don't put it there.

Proposed deletion of Alyssa Selman

The article Alyssa Selman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability tests, While her accident was tragic, Ms. Selman was apparently a non-notable jockey before her accident and the single event of her horse-riding accident is not sufficient to make her independently notable. See WP:BLP1E. In addition, she has not sought publicity so WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:LOWPROFILE apply.

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. General Ization ^Talk 03:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the possible deletion of Alyssa Selman

Hey. It think Wikipedians should have a debate by listening reasons in favour of deletion of Alyssa Selman or against deletion about Alyssa Selman and explain why delete or why keep before the final decision on November 7. I would also recommend that Manitoban Wikipedians look over this article and get into the discussion of deletion or keep.

November 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Rklawton. I noticed that you made a change to an article, November 2015 Paris attacks, 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. Information, such as "ISIS did it" must be reliably sourced. Since it isn't (yet), we can't add it to the article. Rklawton (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 15 in Winnipeg

Wikipedia is celebrating its 15th birthday on January 15, 2016. I have thought for a while that it would be neat to meet some local wikipedians. According to the wikipedians in Winnipeg or Wikipedians in Manitoba category you are one of us. I am contacting people in this category to say: Let's celebrate this milestone. If you know other wikipedians, please ask them to join in as well.

I am posting this to your talk page as a transclude so that any updates will show up automatically.

Hope to see you there! Tenbergen (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One other Winnipeg Wikipedian showed up, in addition to a number of regular skullspace members. It was nice to actually talk to someone else who has worked with Mediawiki and actually "gets" transclusion. Cake was eaten! Tenbergen (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, apparently I haven't logged in to Wikipedia in over 6 years and I totally missed this message and the event! I guessed I missed any 20 year celebration, too. Let me know if you end up doing a 25 year one. :) Clayton Rumley (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stuttgart Airport may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Brussels Airport|Brussels]] (suspended until further notice because of today's terrorist attacks))<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/brussels-airport-remain-closed-wednesday-ceo-163028344.html</ref>, [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Toronto Pearson International Airport, you may be blocked from editing. HkCaGu (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 22 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

On the Warsaw Chopin Airport page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
On the Toronto Pearson International Airport page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I given a warning

I completely do not understand why am I being accused of vandalism and given a warning since what I typed in is a true fact. The airport in Brussels because of today's horrible attacks on the airport and the train the airport is closed temporarily, and flights have been suspended or redirected to other Belgian airports or airports in nearby countries like the Netherlands, Luxembourg, or Germany?

Proposed deletion of Taylor N. Peristy

The article Taylor N. Peristy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NO evidence of notability per general notability guidelines, WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Online coverage is predominantly self-published (tumblr, blogs) or affiliated.

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. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Rajpal S. Ahluwalia"

Rajpal S. Ahluwalia, a page you created, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person\, group of people\, band\, club\, company\, organization\, or web content\, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content that complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. David.moreno72 (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Judge John Roberts, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 27 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the List of cities and towns in Kenya by population page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Fort McMurray, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Rockysmile11^(talk) 02:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fort McMurray. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Rockysmile11^(talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Fort McMurray, you may be blocked from editing. Hwy43 (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disruptively edit or vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Naraha, Fukushima, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop labeling or categorizing towns as ghost towns when they have only been partially or temporarily evacuated. These temporary or partial occurrences do not make a location a ghost town. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since some of your edits appear to be valid, I assume you are not trying to be intentionally disruptive, which is why I did not place a final warning template. However, your interpretation of what constitutes a ghost town is far too expansive and you are applying that both to places that may properly be considered ghost towns, but many that should not be - even if they might eventually meet the definition. Besides considering the ghost town article, please see Wikipedia:Recentism. Also, you may find the following pages have useful information about Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view,Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Questions provide guidance and links to pages where help can be requested on various subjects. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Toronto Pearson International Airport. Hwy43 (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities that share names with diseases or illnesses has been nominated for discussion

Category:Cities that share names with diseases or illnesses, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Toulouse. Toulouse is named for the Tolosates, not a disease. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tucker, Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CDP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at Alyssa Soebandono

Wikipedia ia an encyclopedia. In order to make sure that the content of Wikipedia is reliable and encyclopedic, there are a lot of rules and guidelines. If you wish to contribute to the articles of Wikipedia, you need to understand and to follow these rules.

One of the main principles of the encyclopedia is that the information shall be verifiable. This means that if someone adds information to an article, other editors should be able to check that the infomation is correct. You need to show people where they can check the information, and you do this by citing reliable sources, which you can read more about here. This is especially important in articles about living people, and therefore there are specials rules for such articles. You can read more about the rules for biographies of living people here.

In your edits to the article Alyssa Soebandono you have added the category "Indonesian Muslims". The article about the actress does not mention that she is a Muslim. Adding a category like that can not be done unless the article has a sourced mention of the fact. For such a claim to be added to the article, sourcing is absolutely necessary. Even if you are certain that she is a Muslim, and even if I believe you are right, that is not enough. Your edit summary "almost always if a woman wears the hijab she is a Muslim" constitutes what is known as original research, which you can read more about here. A reliable source that other editors can check is necessary.

Even if it can be sourced that she is a Muslim, it is not necessarily pertinent to mention it in the article. Religion is in most cases a personal matter. In order to add information about personal matters, you would have to create a consensus among editors that it has some relevance for her public life.

Finally, even if it is mentioned in the article, it does not necessarily follow that the category is relevant. Here you can read that "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question."

I suggest that you remove the category yourself. If not, it will soon be removed. --T*U (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lvov Euro Food Corner

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 Lvov Euro Food Corner, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tarhata Misuari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zamboanga. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Silverman disease listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sarah Silverman disease. Since you had some involvement with the Sarah Silverman disease redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. T*U (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potholepeg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Potholepeg. Since you had some involvement with the Potholepeg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. T*U (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Hey, you made this page as a joke. But don't do that, it takes time for us to delete stuff like that. Herostratus (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gasthaus Gutenberger for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gasthaus Gutenberger 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/Gasthaus Gutenberger 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. --T*U (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Gasthaus Gutenberger. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erm any editor can nominate an article for deletion, does not have to be an administrator. I improved the article which hopefully will help its chances of survival. Take a look at the article now and see the difference. This might be instructional for your future articles. Among the things I did was: removed peacock terms (praise and so forth), removed material that was not referenced, or tagged it as citation needed, added material from the references.

The subject of the article is fine in my opinion. So thank you for creating the article. You need to continue to practice sharpening up your article writing, so that your articles are less likely to be nominated for deletion. Herostratus (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove legitimate templates!

Please try to learn how Wikipedia works. Being an administrator has nothing to do with the right to nominate a page for deletion. Your removal of templates is disruptive. Instead you should take part in the discussion here. --T*U (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

Hello! I am still waiting for your response at Talk:Alyssa Soebandono. Please give your opinion based on Wikipedia poicies and guidelines. Thank you! --T*U (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tarhata Misuari for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tarhata Misuari 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/Tarhata Misuari 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. --T*U (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Alyssa Soebandono

Your edit summary goes like this: "Please stop. Your reasons for removal seem like your personal opinion. I strongly encourage to have your reason looked by a professional Wikipedian." Is this some kind of joke?

My edit summary said "see talk page". Did you take a look at the talk page? There I have encouraged you to discuss, I have later reminded you on your talk page. When you did not respond, I quoted the relevant Wikipedia rules about categories in articles about living persons. And you call it "my personal opinion".

You have to learn how Wikipedia works. As a start, you should read some of the Wikipedia guidelines. --T*U (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have also answered you on my talk page. --T*U (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion given

As you can see here, my request for a third opinion has been answered. You will see that the editor giving a third opinion is repeating my arguments. So you have two choices: Either find a reliable source calling her a Muslim, preferably one in which she self-identifies as a Muslim. Or remove the category. Which will it be? --T*U (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about This radio station is not available in your country

Hello, Red Icarus of Jakarta,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether This radio station is not available in your country should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This radio station is not available in your country .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Abbottonian (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Red Icarus of Jakarta. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Welkom (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Welkom (disambiguation) 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/Welkom (disambiguation) 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. T*U (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

Please talk some time to read these small pieces of advice carefully:

1) If you want to suggest moving an article to another title (like you obviously was trying to do with Schmallenberg), it is important that you follow the correct procedure. If not, the request will either be ignored, or the faulty request will be reverted by an automatic program (a so-called "bot"), as it happened here. You can find the correct procedure at WP:RM#CM. As you will see there, you should not do anything on the article page, since that will be handled automatically. You should just enter the appropriate template at the bottom of the talk page as described. If you only make the request as an ordinary edit to the talk page, it will only be seen by those reading that talk page. If you use the template, your suggestion will automatically be listed several places so that editors interested in the topic(s) will be alerted. Besides, the edits you intended to make to the talk page Talk:Schmallenberg ended in the the wrong place, in the misprinted talk page Talk:Schamllenberg, where probably no one will see it, since there is no article Schamllenberg.

2) It would be helpful if you learned how to sign your talk page edits. You can read about it at WP:SIGHOW. It is quite simple: Either you put four tildes (~) at the end of your entry, or you click at the signature icon just above the editing window. If you do not sign, your message will sometimes be automatically signed by a "bot", leaving a message like "Preceding unsigned comment added by ...", but that does not always work, in which case it is not easy to see who has written it. --T*U (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempted request for move here is completely malformed. If you really want people to discuss your suggestion, you must follow the correct procedure described at WP:RM#CM. --T*U (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welkom to my house listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Welkom to my house. Since you had some involvement with the Welkom to my house redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. T*U (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Welkom to my house

A tag has been placed on Welkom to my house requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

r3

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typos

If you make a Google search for "Nwe Yrok", the first thing that springs up, is New York. Google's search algoritm allows for "fuzzy" searching and is trying to second-guess your misprints. That has nothing to do with "Nwe Yrok" being a plausible redirect for "New York". According to Wikipedia policy, implausible typos have no place as redirects, as stated here. Please stop recreating your "Welkom..." redirect. --T*U (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Welkom to my house

A tag has been placed on Welkom to my house requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.

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. T*U (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Republic of North Sudan listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Islamic Republic of North Sudan. Since you had some involvement with the Islamic Republic of North Sudan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. CMD (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals

Please don't change capital fields based on what your own research into the matter. Reliable sources are needed. Further, your definition of what makes a city is different to that used in most of the world, so imposing such definitions on those articles isn't very helpful. CMD (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Please stop adding Category:Developed countries and Category:Semi-developed countries. They are highly dubious and will likely to be deleted soon. Your additions (and concomitant removals) would only cause disruption of major wikiarticles. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with classyfing countries by development. It's obvious some countries are wealthy, other's have an okay standard's of living, others are poor and others very poor.

See WP:NOR. As you said in Category:Developed countries: "Countries that are have a generally ok standards of living such as Malaysia, Croatia, Lebanon, Chile ect. will soon be listed on a separate country called semi-developed countries." It is very subjective and highly offensive to its citizens to decide which country is "ok for living" and which is not. Please do not start mass-categorization of major Wikipedia articles without consulting the related project first, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries in this case. Materialscientist (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This not about which countries are okay for living. For example I would neither live in a developed dictatorship like UAE or developing democracy like Benin. And it is also obvious and a very simple fact that a country like Germany or Japan can't be classified as anything but developed or a country like Ethiopia or Cambodia can't be classified as anything but developing. Also if you are saying it is rude to classify countries like Lebanon or Croatia as either semi-developed or developing, either way developed or not developed it is an obvious fact that countries like Lebanon or Croatia is a lot poorer than countries like the USA or Australia but a lot richer than like India or Vietnam.--Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia has a page Developed country, which contains several lists. You are not allowed to prefer one of the lists or to create your own list.Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Developing country.Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly message

Hi Red Icarus, it is good to have new editors joining Wikipedia family, however, as a “family”, we should learn the do’s and don’t’s. I noticed that in about a year joining, you have gotten lot of messages asking you to stop editing some of the contents, etc. The best way to start writing in Wikipedia is to join a group, wikigroup. Start with something you love the most. In the group page, read up the guidelines. Normally, in the group page, they will list down articles that require additional info or articles that require “fixing”. Start with that first, and slowly you will know what to do. I have been here for years but I still ask friends in my “group” to work together on formats and contents for all articles I started or edited. Do not simply edit articles without discussing or consulting the “group”. If you are interested to contribute in “Countries” (based on your recent edits), please join Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries or its subsets. PS- I agreed with Materialscientist, do not start mass-categorization of major Wikipedia articles without consulting the related project first. Thanks. --Jay (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of City of the Winnipeg

A tag has been placed on City of the Winnipeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.

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. Novarupta (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Provinces and territories of the Canada

A tag has been placed on Provinces and territories of the Canada requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.

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. Novarupta (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Morris listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kimberly Morris. Since you had some involvement with the Kimberly Morris redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Novarupta (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to France, did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I suppose that could be seen as a funny joke, but not when you have been warned about the use of that template already. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 23:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 23:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 953 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Airlines Flight 953. Since you had some involvement with the United Airlines Flight 953 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. DBaK (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Bowie, Glenn Frey, Alan Rickman, Prince, Anton Yelchin, Gene Wilder, Florence Henderson, Alan Thicke, John Glenn, George Michael, Carrie Fisher, Debbie Reynolds listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect David Bowie, Glenn Frey, Alan Rickman, Prince, Anton Yelchin, Gene Wilder, Florence Henderson, Alan Thicke, John Glenn, George Michael, Carrie Fisher, Debbie Reynolds. Since you had some involvement with the David Bowie, Glenn Frey, Alan Rickman, Prince, Anton Yelchin, Gene Wilder, Florence Henderson, Alan Thicke, John Glenn, George Michael, Carrie Fisher, Debbie Reynolds redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. T*U (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hello. It's only my opinion, but I am concerned that two of the most recent redirects (see above) you created seemed inappropriate. I worry that you have perhaps not understood the purpose of redirects and I would urge you to read up on them, or seek help with the concept, before you create any more. I am sorry but I do not feel that your present strategy is likely to be successful, but that's only my view. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on George Michael. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Allison Wilke

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 935 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Airlines Flight 935. Since you had some involvement with the United Airlines Flight 935 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. T*U (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who died on an airplane or at the airport has been nominated for discussion

Category:People who died on an airplane or at the airport, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Carrie Fisher.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carrie Fisher. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Calidum 20:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Allison Wilke

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Allison Wilke. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 20:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Wilke deletion

I am feeling mad that my article got deleted. I tried to explain user ATS to specify how this person is not noticeable and I still no response and speedy deleted. I asked him/her to replace it with a talk page about deletion and still deleted. And I was blocked for one week for disruptive editing. I never ment to do that. I am just asking nicely to give more reasons for deletion and while Allison Wilke was not a very famous person she accomplished notable accomplishments being a cancer fighter and activist and spreading awareness about cancer. In a talk page I could see more people's opinions whever to keep or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk • contribs)

Any protests will fall on deaf ears; yours is a consistent pattern of disruption, for which you have been blocked before. If you wish to edit constructively once your block expires, you would do exceedingly well to review Wikipedia policies, especially governing what an encyclopedia is and is not, and our notability guideline. The short version: whether a person is notable is irrelevant—an article must demonstrate through the inclusion within the article of reliable sources that the person is notable for our purposes. That Allison Wilke has been deleted twice speaks volumes. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However there is some things I wanted to explain about Allison Wilke and how she was noticeable --Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC) 1. http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/what-oa-who-allison-wilke-9597164 explains who she was. 2. Wikipedia's The OA article has a section about her. 3. She was a film producer and movie director. 4. May have not been famous in her short life but is comparable to someone who was not a celebrity but was a brave and strong public cancer fighter who lost their life far too soon like Talia Castellano. 5.It's explained on Google who she was, how old, place of birth, major movies. 6. She worked in many noticeable movies like Pirates of the Caribbean. 7. Most noticeable person with the popular women's name Allison according to Google search and images as the first thing when you search Allison is Allison Wilke in front of well know people like Allison Williams or Allison Janney. 8. The OA is a very popular show which has millions of fans even in my far away country of origin of Indonesia and other far away countries. Millions of people saw this and many people will search for her especially OA fans. 9. She has done lots of outreach for people affected by cancer like setting up foundations and directing movies about cancer. 10. This is a very important one:Google even suggests Allison Wilke Wikipedia like if an article about her existed. I think it is absolutely disrespectful to speedy delete about a hero like her. For the listed reasons I suggest restoring the page. For now I will not recreate the article about her as I do not want get blocked again or have the article blocked for non-administrators' creation. So I suggest recreating it your self or start a talk page. I know that I have made many editing flaws, I mean tones, but this article I really think should at least be reviewed on a talk page. --Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Carrie Reynolds, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Why did that get undone? I think Carrie Reynolds should redirect to Carrie Fisher since her mother was the famous actress Debbie Reynolds who died a day after her. That is why most people would search for Carrie Fisher and not the underground actress Carrie Reynolds. --Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you think is not enough. Apart from the very obvious recentist bias to your edit, Carrie Fisher has never at any time been called Carrie Reynolds, so that is not a remotely credible reason for blanking content. As is the case in most European-derived societies, Carrie Fisher carried her father's surname, and never used her mother's surname. Blanking content for such a trivial and speculative reason is disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My appeal for getting unblocked

I am requesting an appeal for getting unblocked because I was just voicing my concern about the Allison Wilke article and it's deletion. I was not recreating it. I was just giving evidence of notability that could be judged by a Wikipedian as relevant or irrelevant and how it is relevant or irrelevant. I was simply just asking questions about the article. --Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to tell you this before: If you want to edit Wikipedia, you have to learn how Wikipedia works. The Guide to appealing blocks is linked in the block message above or you can click here. Unless you follow the procedures, no-one will even bother to answer you. --T*U (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is super complicated. Is their a simple way of requesting an appeal?--Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2017 (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).

Red Icarus of Jakarta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was wrongly blocked since I was simply asking questions about why Allison Wilke was deleted. I was not recreating the article. I just simply put some signs of notability for a Wikipedian to judge and explain how it is noticeable or not noticeable? I however to admit that I have not been a good editor a lot of the time I formally apologize for all my disruptive editing. I do want to resolve my dispute about Allison Wilke ASAP. I am still completely confused of why it was deleted speedily with out any fuss. Seems to me that I sourced it well and there is many sources about her and seems to show some small notability.

Decline reason:

Your unblock request and other comments on this page indicate a continued inability to understand how Wikipedia works. We neither want nor need an apology; in order to be unblocked you will need to demonstrate a degree of competence and understanding. So far, you have pretty much demonstrated the opposite. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:54, 31 March 2017 (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 weren't blocked for the Allison Wilke article, you were blocked for disruptive redirects and for concerns about your ability to edit Wikipedia productively. Your unblock request shows no understanding of this. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain where it was is disruptive? I am making a very serious apology and I am being honest. I have learned my mistakes and I feel bad and sad that I am blocked indefinitely. I really miss contributing to Wikipedia. If I am still going to be blocked is it possible if I could use an alternative username and resolve the Allison Wilke dispute there without being accused of sockpuppetry? --Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for a long history of bizarre and inappropriate redirects that became disruptive and for showing no understanding of why this was a problem. This lack of awareness appears to be a continuing issue given your comments above. Blocked is blocked: you may not edit Wikipedia under any circumstances outside this talkpage while blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Allison Wilke dispute

Hello, I have create a redirect to The OA called Allison Wilke as she was a major contributor and Wikipedia's OA article does have information on who she was. I know who Allison Wilke was because I watched the episode where she was honored. A standalone article may be too much like you created. However I can't unblock you as I do not have the authority to do so and as most of your edits where disruptive. --Age of Aquarius (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Red Icarus of Jakarta. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Megia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Megia 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/Megia 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. Nördic Nightfury 09:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Endang (disambiguation)

The article Endang (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]