User talk:Drewmutt/Archive 1

Regarding edits to Hazel Crest, Il

The edits made to this page reflect a referendum which was voted on today during a consolidated election. As this affects the term limits of any elected official, the modification was intended as informational for all that frequent this page for general information. The entire referendum as stated was copied and pasted as to remove any ambiguity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3B7E:8800:D017:34F6:FC8E:FE67 (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Your Question from IRC

Often times, the best way to deal with such persistent-vandalism/disruptive editing scenarios is to--first--leave a warning on their talk page (often a mix of templates and personalized messages ideally). To read more about using warnings, available warning templates, etc., feel free to peruse through the tabs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_warnings. Generally speaking, though, if the user persists vandalizing after a level 4 warning, you should report the user at WP:AIV. If you have Twinkle installed as one of your user scripts (see the Twinkle hyperlink for more information), you can hover over the TW button towards the top right-hand part of the page, click on ARV, and report the user (while on the offending user's talk page). For now, I've given the user level three warning here on their talk page for edit warring behavior. Feel free to reach out if you have any more questions--always a pleasure to help you out. --JustBerry (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Sethischill14

Hey all of wanted to do is change that it is the muder capital of MN the rest is okay. Sethischill14 (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sethischill14: No need, I deleted that portion as well since it was also unsourced. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi! Per your request at WP:RFP/R, I've granted you rollback rights. Please remember that this tool is only to be used in cases of blatant editing abuse or non-controversial cleanup, and feel free to ask if you have any questions. Best of luck! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

that was fast!

Sorry, James and I were just having a little joke... (this is about my "penguin born" edit.) I knew he'd change it right away anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.82.43 (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong to use "dud"

I was wrong to use "dud" instead of "nonworking link" but otherwise my edits have much improved the article! 2600:1002:B12D:6F0F:80FC:9BBD:C40B:CFC1 (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Compare Stephen Hadley now to before 4 January when I started. Better structure better citing more information. 2600:1002:B12D:6F0F:80FC:9BBD:C40B:CFC1 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree you have made some constructive edits, a message from me with more information is on your talk page. Drewmutt (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I have done the "deadlink" change like you suggested. 2600:1002:B12D:6F0F:80FC:9BBD:C40B:CFC1 (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Rampant Slander!

WHY I NEVER!

Good sir, you have accused me of such awful an act, and I will stand for it not one more moment! For you to judge me so that you would revert to lies and attempting to jeopardize my reputation? I would scoff at your tom foolery sir, if it not for your devious intentions!! I attempt to bring truth and clarity to these fine readers, and you would DENY them their rights to knowledge endowed by their moment of birth! Well I will stand for it no more! I will have you know that I have filed a report with the United Bureaucracies of Alternate Federal General Treaties and am expecting a reply soon. I will have this matter rectified as to continue bringing what information the public needs to thrive and advance; regardless of your deception, charlatan!

Good day sir!

2601:243:8200:82FC:8005:4ADF:C94E:D19 (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Sincerely,

Father Sir Knowledge Seeker Opintanium Reginald Takerbaker III

Question about links.

Sorry. I meant Costa Rica :-). I also forgot to add a source as I found the info on this wikipedia page. Can you cite a Wikipedia page or must you find a different citation as the article has no source? From Dylan. Cricketer993 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dylan, and welcome to Wikipedia! You can't cite another Wikipedia page to support another article, as Wikipedia doesn't consider itself to be a reliable source check out WP:CIRCULAR for more info. Typically, what we look for is secondary independent sources. Let me know if you have any other questions. Drewmutt (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted by suspected ban evader User:Ryulong - see WP:ANI for evidence

Stop reverting these spelling corrections as vandalism.--206.255.40.218 (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 17:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Reanlagh

Hello , their has been a mistake on the renlagh Wikipedia page. A joke that was made between friends has now been taken too seriosly. " The RJR " are not a gang in renlagh and alex ryan who is being referred to is not a gang memeber. This joke has Gone too far and I apologise. I'm asking that you no longer alter the page regarding the RJR mistake. Thank you

RJR4life (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Dana Milbank

Dear Drewmutt,

I am somewhat puzzled by the reason you gave me for deleting my information about Dana Milbank's assertions that Donald Trump is an anti-Semite: "it did not appear constructive".

I interpret this to mean that it did not appear constructive to you personally, to your POV. If so, please explain how you arrived at your conclusion.

If my paragraph doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements, I will be more than happy to modify it or delete it altogether. Is my paragraph misleading? Incorrect quotes? Unreliable sources? Provides information that may be construed as criticism of Dana Milbank?

I look forward to your explanations as to why my paragraph is not constructive.

Thank you,

Vlad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad rutenburg (talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think using Huggle to revert this edit was appropriate. Anti-vandalism tools should only be used on clear cases of vandalism. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I entirely agree with both of you, this was an example of being a bit trigger happy. Lesson learned, and thank you so much for your feedback. Drewmutt (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Drewmutt,

I am probably being obtuse here, but I fail to see that you have addressed/answered my questions. Could you please explain your answers to me for the second time. For your convenience, here is my original text:

I am somewhat puzzled by the reason you gave me for deleting my information about Dana Milbank's assertions that Donald Trump is an anti-Semite: "it did not appear constructive". I interpret this to mean that it did not appear constructive to you personally, to your POV. If so, please explain how you arrived at your conclusion. If my paragraph doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements, I will be more than happy to modify it or delete it altogether. Is my paragraph misleading? Incorrect quotes? Unreliable sources? Provides information that may be construed as criticism of Dana Milbank?

I look forward to your explanations as to why my paragraph is not constructive. And thank you in advance.

Vlad

Grepping all English Wikipedia revisions

For simple searches and counts, you can just pipe the 7z dumps to grep like this and get some simple answer: phabricator:P4750 (8148 lines-revisions contain the string). If you want to search just the diffs, though, that's not trivial: better use some existing tool like mediawiki-utilities/mwdiffs or wikiq. Nemo 06:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Red Sanders

You reverted an edit for no good reason. Red Sanders did die with a prostitute, and the cited source confirms it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:B44B:3400:B416:3F8A:EDD4:9EE2 (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@2605:E000:B44B:3400:B416:3F8A:EDD4:9EE2: Hello there. Unfortunately, the reference you have to substantiate your claim is a Youtube video which Wikipedia doesn't see as a valid reference. See WP:YTREF for more information.

Penn State Basketball

You reverted my edit for no reason. All the information for the game I entered vs Indiana on 1/18/17 was correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3494:8C30:3062:D336:6834:43A8 (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Entirely my fault. Undone, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. Drewmutt (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I Dont Know

I don't get why you guys keep messaging me I don't know how to use this site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktwg (talk • contribs) 23:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

But it is racist!How about saying "the pretty one and the ugly one" No.The author WAS racist.2001:56A:71B5:6300:1CC6:445B:6012:2286 (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk protected

I've semi-protected your talk page for 2 days - please let me know if you'd like it removed -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 07:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

He's fine with it, here is some kickass bbq ribs to help ease the drama around here lately. Adwctamia (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Viewing deleted pages

Hi Drewmutt, I very almost responded to your post at the VP with the following comment. I've decided against it as it'll likely derail things a little too much!

`Quick question which hopefully won't derail the discussion too much - @Drewmutt: let's say this was put into action, and you were `in charge` of deciding the criteria to grant the viewdeclinedpages userright - where would you draw the line? I ask because this is a conversation we seem to have very often, and although I admire your forward thinking and appreciate you addressing some of the common concerns above it always boils down (for me at least) to this: "If someone is trusted enough to view deleted information, it's likely they're trusted enough to have the majority of the non-admin toolkit (rollback, NPR etc). If they're trusted enough to have most of those rights, then they should be trusted enough to be made an admin". I'm all for unbundling some of the admin toolkit, but I think efforts are sometimes better off put towards making RfA less of a mess and increasing the number of admins. Apologies for the derailment, this train will now continue to its scheduled stops`

I'd appreciate any comments you have, as it's something I feel strongly about - you've got the making of an admin, and you should consider looking at WP:PERM and seeing if there's any extra userrights which would help in your contributions here. Ciao -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 08:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Samtar:Howdy! I wanted to say "nice to see you IRL" but well, you know what I mean. First off thank you so much for taking the time to get back to me on this, it's singularly the most confounding and therefore interesting topic I've noticed during my WP journey. I know the community must be exhausted going round-and-round on this, and I can see how a lil' spunky newbie rehashing may be less than welcome. I get the circular logic about getting all the individual rights vs. being an admin, but as a newcomer, I see it a bit differently. I wholly agree that the RfA process is a painful one. Just hearing the lament of people going through it, I can't say I'm excited about it.

My personal view is that there should be no admin, I like the idea of "minimum effective dosing" of rights, but I digress. My quick read on historically how these conversations fall apart is something like..

"If they can see deleted pages, why can't they be NPR?"


"If they're NPR, why can't they be mover?"

"If they're all that, why aren't they an admin?"

"What's the point of anything anymore?! BVWAK!"

I feel that every right should be broken apart, then you don't have to worry about this daunting RfA process. Although, I wanted to keep my specific policy change proposal to simply "let's let vetted people look at failed AfC pages, to help folks with reasonable questions." I don't see any risk in it, and I don't see any reason why eligibility should be different than rollback.

When I've brought this up casually, I've heard variations of "Well, it's always been that way, and no one complained" which is discouraging, to say the least. To be blunt, as a newcomer, I've felt a vibe of "Hey, I worked hard to become an admin, and we're not about to let an inexperienced person look at removed content." (insert a million WP:___ links). I deeply respect the admins in this community and the motivation is to not nag them so much for these low-to-no risk mundane tasks. Now at the apex of my diatribe, I'd say it's actually a disservice to the helpees. Many of my 3am conversations go like this... (skewed to illustrate point)

"GWAK! Why was my page declined? The article is Blah Inc"


"I can't view the content of Blah Inc" (asks around for admin, no reply)

"What's your username?"

"Why do you need that?"

"Because the only way I can see the content of your declined page is piecing together what is probably an overlooked vulnerability called edit filter logs.."

"Looked an no luck, come back later."


Lastly, it also removes the ability to learn more about NPR, and how they make the decisions they do.

Sorry for the long-windedness, some of my reply might be more self-therapy than a reply ^_^ I just know the value of getting the input from people who are new to community, and I couldn't be happier that you're open to it. I'm going to take a look at more PERMs, thanks for the suggestion. I would love to hear your thoughts about the above (no character limit!) Thanks in advance Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

208.66.176.18

Hi, I do not think my additions to wikipedia pages are not constructive. I work at Office Depot, and I am adding some inside information on there that I think might help the overall viewers experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.176.18 (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@208.66.176.18: I have a hard time beliveing that changing a section header from "History" to "History of Thiccness" is constructive. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Hello. When you revert vandalism, please try to revert all harmful edits, not just the last one or the one by the last IP address. When there is a series of disruptive edits made by several IP addresses (from the same range), such as those by 115.189.x.x at David Goffin, you can even see in the diff that reverting the last IP address is not enough (it's David Goffin, not James ranuna). This makes it more difficult for other people to spot and revert the vandalism later, and the bad edits buried in the edit history may survive for a long time. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@J. M.: Fair enough, thanks for the feedback. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

RCHS Feedback

Hello,

Sorry about that on the Rancho Cucamonga High School page. I'm new to editing and I just wanted to update the page for my old high school a little bit. I'll work on it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackfree (talk • contribs) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mackfree: No problem, just try out your edits in your sandbox first. Also, welcome to Wikipedia and let me know if you have any questions! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 02:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Ooops

Sorry, my daughter accidentally did that while researching, thanks for changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.189.50.254 (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@49.189.50.254: My pleasure! Let me know if you have any other questions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 21:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:EF/R#dat boi

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:EF/R#dat boi. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 14:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

why did u behave unfairly..

Please....Consider each others position...i think Dokdo..or East sea(sea of jap) is not something u think easily.. i think so..u have thought japan is right..because of japan's power.. for example, u are beggar and u have a dog..but the rich say, "the dog is mine!".. and u may yell " its mine " Then people around will see as a thief..because u are beggar... i wanna say to u..Think outside of the box..Take care~.. Jangg8962 (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your revert Drewmutt. Jangg8962 is right on the edge of being blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm just tryna call Sebastian Stan papi chulo, like it na a big deal calm tf down fam! Thanks❤️ Maraisbrutal (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit Removed

Hi Drewmutt! I recently made an edit to the Spanish Missions in California page - I reworded a sentence because it was a blatant copy of the source that it came from, and then I added the citation because it wasn't included before. I feel like this might have been a mistake but I would love to hear back! Thanks, Cyan Vincent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyan Vincent (talk • contribs) 00:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Cyan Vincent (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cyan Vincent: Hi there and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you're enjoying the Wiki Ed journey so far. It wasn't the rewording or the citation (thank you for adding that) which was problematic. It was an addition of a template that's not intended to be in an article, and it subsequently broke the formatting of the article. It looks like you made the edit in your sandbox, which thank you for doing that, and then you copy / pasted it into the article. This is preferred way to make edits, but when you copy from your sandbox, make sure to do so without including the template at the top. Hope this is helpful, and let me know if you have any other questions! (Oh and bonus points for coming back and signing your edit ^_^) Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I see - thank you! I'm not sure how I included that template, but I will try not to do that again. Thanks again!! Cyan Vincent (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I saw the message you left, I am sorry that was accidental. Thank you for being kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OhioBasketball (talk • contribs) 03:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

TiaaCrack

This is not a test edit.

The page Lana Zakocela is violating the Wikipedia rules.

1. Incorrect date of birth as substantiated by US Visa office. 2. Incorrect height as substantiated by US Visa office. 3. Self promotion and advertising of perfume and campaign. 4. Subjective information about "life changing experiences with no verificstion",

I am in the modeling industry and know this page is wrong so I corrected it!

I

@TiaaCrack: All of your issues can be remedied with discussion on the talk page, which I see you've contributed to, so thank you for that; although you didn't really giving much time for a meaningful discussion. The other avenue is through the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle which it seems like you're attempting to participate in. Either way, what's not helpful is make edits to pages that consequently break the formatting of the page making difficult for others to participate in the editing of the page. This is why Wikipedia encourages people make changes in their sandbox first, as I suggested on your talk page. Regarding your issues with the articles, a better method to address those is to tag the areas you have issues with so other editors have a chance to fix them. Namely, the {{Citation needed}} and {{advert}} templates. Let me know if I can be of any more help. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Material vs Materiel

Materiel is basically military hardware. Materiel is proper over Material in that edit I made on the Kursk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptComrade (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@CaptComrade: Ah, this is why I love Wikipedia, I learn something everyday. You are absolutely correct, so I undo the reverts. But I wonder since it required explanation to me if there's maybe a simpler term we could use. Would love your thoughts, and thanks for pointing that out to me. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Drewmutt. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 15,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Mifter (talk) 04:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Melrose

Hello Drewmutt.

Do you live in the Scottish Borders? Have you visited Melrose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpdkc (talk • contribs) 10:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Amethi (Lok Sabha seat) page

Hello : In Indian elections, sometimes 20-30 people contest a seat and many of them do not get even 1000 votes out of half a million. These candidates contribute nothing to an election, and Indian authorities have been planning to reduce their menace. I only removed info about dozens of such frivolous candidates from the page. I suggest you restore the change because it keeps all the important info intact, and keeps the page to the point.

- Dhananjay Naniwadekar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.119.160 (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@50.184.119.160: The reason your edit was reverted was because you added a personal comment on an article page, which is not what it's for. Those types of things belong on the talk page of an article. Let me know if you have any further questions, thanks! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverted Ian McDonald section.

Hi Drewmutt,

You reverted my edit of Ian McDonald's Links section. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_MacDonald) "because it did not appear constructive"

I think the edit / URL should be retained on the grounds that Note 2 refers to an article in the Rolling Stone magazine and the article was based on the Interview later published that I linked to. So, the article mentions in the Biography section "Paul McCartney has stated his dissatisfaction with its accuracy.[2] " and inks to a Rolling Stone Article in a magazine (published 31th of July as per the note "'Rolling Stone' Issue #1214, 31 July 2014"), but I added the link to the original interview held on 17th of July. I therefore think the URL directly supports with linked evidence what the author states.

I did consider modifting the note itself (adding: interview publishded separately see links) and then adding the link.

I hope you agree and revert your edit. Thanks, Y.

@Yoasties: My mistake, I've undone the revert and removed the warn from your talk page. Thank you for bring this to my attention, and let me know if you have any other questions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer

Hello Drewmutt. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 18,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017 - Maria Reynolds

Please stop disrupting the article on the historical figure with quotes from the musical show lyrics which are btw under copyright. It does not help the reliability of Wikipedia nor the occasional visitor of the page. Isananni (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for my previous edit, I had misread the oage history, you had actually reverted repeated vandalism, thank you for that. Isananni (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting it back

I was gonna change it back anyways, i was just checking to see how easy it was to change an article... i guess you could say i was curious....

Attack Article

How is this an attack article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joester09 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joester09: Wrong tag reason, I've updated it. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joester09: I'm replying to your deletion contest here since the page will likely be gone soon. Even though you may of wrote it, reddit owns the content now. Check out their user agreement for more information. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Uhhhhh...no.

You retain the rights to your copyrighted content or information that you submit to reddit ("user content") except as described below.

By submitting user content to reddit, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display your user content in any medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do.

While Reddit doesn't own the content, we need proof that whoever actually wrote the content licensed it CC BY-SA 3.0. @Joester09:, please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on that. (talk page stalker) --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 13:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

my editions

can you explain what and / or why is wrong ??? i no understand... i'm only trying to help with my ideas, thinks, etc. with my pure innocence, i'm not a vandal-criminal.

Okay, if it's wrong just reverse, but I do not understand why you reverted to other articles too if the error is in one.

--Yin 69 Yang (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Satchidananda Panda

You tagged it for WP:A1. I think that WP:A3 would also have been appropriate, but that is a small matter. The speedy tag was then removed by another editor. The two editors appear to be working together as if they are one person, so I have filed a sockpuppet report. I have also moved the article, which is being expanded, to draft space, the right place for an incomplete article (but there is no right place for an article that is developed by sockpuppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Hi there Robert! Thanks for the message. When I first approached the page it said only: "Introduction Research Personal Life Aspiration" Which, in retrospect were probably section titles, but I didn't notice that at the time. Anywho, like you said, it's a small matter. But thank you for draftifying it and the SPI report. Have a good one! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of things considered foul smelling

The article List of things considered foul smelling has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unencyclopedic list with no objective inclusion parameters possible.

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. Carrite (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)