User talk:Michepman/Archive 1

2018 ==

Hello, I'm Bonadea. I noticed that you recently removed content from Alexander Burdonsky without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. bonadea contributions talk 23:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Hi Bonadea sorry for the mistake. I was trying to add just one sentence about Mr Burdonsky's wife who passed away some time ago and I messed up the page haha. thank you for fixing.[reply]

Fist of Justice

You tagged this article as WP:CSD#A7, which doesn't apply to creative works - and says so if you'd taken the time to read it. You have a grand total of 86 edits in about a year. You are not experienced enough to tag articles. Please don't do it anymore.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. I will find another approach. thank you for reaching out. Michepman (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your other approach didn't work. You need to figure out to create an AfD properly. See WP:AFDHOWTO.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your assistance. I have made another attempt that I believe has now been properly transcluded based on the steps outlined therein. Michepman (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD listings

I'm sure it was inadvertent, but please don't do this again. R2 (bleep) 22:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another request related to your recent AFD. Please don't remove wikilinks to an article that you have merely nominated for deletion. I am refering to these two edits from July 9: [1] and [2]. First of all, you are presuming that your nomination will succeed, which is never guaranteed. Many, many AFDs end in Keep decisions. Second, when other editors are looking at the article to determine its worth to Wikipedia, one thing some editors examine is the number of inbound links from other articles. If you've removed them at time of nomination, you skew their appraisal of how important the article is to the project as a whole. Third, both of these edits I linked are in fact malformed, you removed one set of brackets and not the other. Thank you for your attention. --Krelnik (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amazonomachy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiope (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Travis Mills, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rachel Lindsay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for supporting my recent albeit unsuccessful RfA. Your support was much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Formal proposal 3 modification

Hi. I wanted to let you know the proposal has been modified and Mandruss notified me I should do this. The proposal, similar to the old one is:

Anthony 22 is limited to making 1 edit per article per 24 hours in the main space. Self-reverts and edits that have been self-reverted do not count toward this limit. Talk page discussions do not count toward this limit.

This is just a notification. Thanks.

Regards

---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, another modification has occurred. Rather than only a modified proposal there is now an "original" proposal and an "alternate" proposal. Just letting you know. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of posts to this page

Although it's not best practice, if you want to remove other editor's posts from this page, that's your privilege, but do not use the edit summary "rvv", which is shorthand for "revert vandalism".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 - I am not sure I understand the rule. I reviewed Help:Archiving a talk page and it was indicated that it was acceptable practice to archive old talk page comments after a period of time. Is this policy no longer applicable? I don't not see how this construed as 'vandalism reversion'; the other editors' posts were not vandalized or removed, they were placed in an archive talk page which I created using the process outlined in the above post and is visible here in my archive:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michepman/Archive_1

Please let me know if I have performed this operation incorrectly and I will try and fix ASAP. Michepman (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to manually archive your Talk page (as opposed to having a bot do it), you need to do at least a few things differently. First, when you remove the edits from your Talk page and put them in the archive, your edit summary should be something like "archive", not "rvv". Second, your archive(s) should be listed on your Talk page so editors know they exist. Third, why did you leave the Teahouse post, which was even older than the others? Archiving is supposed to remove old posts, not recent posts, which is partly why a bot is better because you can set it up for automated archiving and archive only posts that are so many days old, as well as other features.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I don’t have the technical skill to set up a bot for automatic archiving but when I have mort time I will do some research. However, I think I am fine with the way I have archived my talk page so unless there is a policy saying that I have to use a bot then I think that it is best to leave it as is at least for the purposes of my own talk page.

The link to the archive is now on both my main page and my talk page, so any editors who are curious are free to review at their leisure. Beyond that, I’m not sure if there’s any real reason or way to change what I have done retroactively so I’ll leave it as is for now. Again, thanks for the feedback. Michepman (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. Nothing requires a bot. Indeed, archiving isn't even required. However, if you want a bot to do it, there are editors who can help you set it up so you don't have to "learn" it. I'd help if you wanted, but I'm not good at it, either.

--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from House of Lords into Lords Temporal. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa (talk · contribs) - Thank you so much for letting me know of this rule and for making the appropriate attribution statement for the Lords article. I think this is the first article in which I have adapted from another article, but going forward will ensure that I make the appropriate attribution statements for any future situation. Michepman (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Warren County Economic Development Authority, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Pollin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bethesda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject India

WikiProject India

Namaste, Michepman. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. As you may know, the old newsletter for WikiProject India ceased circulation in 2010. Now we have re-launched the newsletter in a new way. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Thank you.

Subscribe

Sent by Path slopu on behalf of WikiProject India. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Almeida and CIR

I hope you didn't get the impression that you were the one I was talking about in terms of competency. If so I sincerely apologize for not being clear enough as I meant to direct CIR at the IP, who doesn't seem to understand/care about reliable sources. While I voted keep in the Wilfred Roy Cousins, Sr. AfD I did understand your sourcing concerns. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment! I think I misread your post earlier but I see what you mean now. I really appreciate you weighing in on this discussion by the way. It was nearing the end of the AFD and there were only one or two other votes. Michepman (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Marsland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plymouth County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable!

Hello Michepman. You recently posted at WP:ANI (diff) and here at Talk:Karl Racine, graciously suggesting you were prepared to accept an apology from either myself, User:Omanlured or User:Yngvadottir. Please could you explain what apology you thought you were accepting, and from whom?

As I have just explained at WP:ANI, no apology was being offered by me, whatsoever, in any shape or form, to you. Nor do I feel anyone else was offering you an apology, either.

That you think they were is itself rather alarming. My apology for making one wrong revert was solely offered to the editor, Omanlured. I was quite genuinely expecting you to recognise your own failings and bad faith assumptions, and I opened up an opportunity for you to graciously offer such an apology, or at least an acceptance that your original and strongly-worded accusations of bad faith editing by Omanlured were misplaced. So, I find your follow-up response in attempting to accept a (non-offered) apology quite unbelievable, and this leads me to conclude that you may still have a lot to learn about what collegiate working here really entails. Please ponder on this, and try to assume good faith in future. Accepting an apology that was not offered just makes you look a bit silly. I realise that, like me, you were trying to keep Wikipedia a safer place, but a misplaced sense of right and wrong, and an inability to recognise one's own mistakes helps no-one. Best, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Cutler

I went back and looked at the article and found no evidence at all that the bishop, born and educated in Montreal and now an archbishop in Atlantic Canada ([3]), is the same person as the Los Angeles radio producer, creator of Cutler Productions and Cutler Comedy Networks ([4]). In fact asserting they are the same without a reference saying so is not only a disservice to readers, but a WP:BLP violation. It turned out that you inserted the podcast ascription at 1:48 on the 26th. Omanlured politely removed it with an appropriate edit summary at 16:56 and then in the same minute started a section on the talk page, pinging you—also polite, informing you that the edit was questioned and giving you an opportunity to present evidence. At 1:34 on the 27th you instead reverted Omanlured on the article with an edit summary that you were reverting vandalism, and at 1:36 gave them a Level 4 vandalism warning. That's way over the top, and they were in fact correct to undo your edit (they would have been justified in leaving the edit summary "reverting unsourced per BLP"), and even reached out to you to discuss. Please check before making any such additions based simply on a name, and provide a reference. And in terms of on-wiki interactions, discuss on the article talk page rather than reverting and templating; in any event, the templates are an escalating series, it should hardly ever be necessary to jump straight to Level 4 even if you are reverting vandalism, which this would not have been even if there were legitimate grounds for disagreement (note WP:Vandalism). Yngvadottir (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir - Thank you for raising this to my attention. I agree with you that I handled this poorly and I will ensure that this does not happen again. I was wrong about Ron Cutler (who, as you noted, is clearly not the same person as the Parcast founder) and I should have issued a less stringent warning for a first violation to Omanlured for their continued failure to use edit summaries. Thank you for taking the time to reach out to me and also for removing the WP:BLP violations that I wrongly included on the Cutler article. I will go over my edits again to make sure that no other problematic material was added by me. Michepman (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see that you have now started Ron Cutler (radio broadcaster); I had been thinking myself that he might be notable, although it seems to me the podcast is more his son's thing. All I would add regarding the original article is that it would have been useful if you had expanded the existing references when working on that article, and that might have led you to realize you were conflating two different careers. Regarding Omanlured's edit, however, they did leave an edit summary. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I was rushing through and did not do the appropriate level of due diligence before jumping to a hasty conclusion. Michepman (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that your interactions with that editor have continued, have led to the opening of a deletion review, and have troubled admins, I'm going to return to this point, because I believe that was the edit by O. that caused your problems with him. It is perfectly legitimate for you to want to document the founding of Parcast and that Ron Cutler's previous career on Wikipedia; as I said above, I wondered myself whether he might merit an article. But you jumped to an unwarranted assumption of vandalism and reacted far too strongly even if it had been vandalism (it was a manual revert with a reason given in the edit summary, and you have continued to refer to the editor in question as not making edit summaries, while your tendency to use rollback means that there are in fact fewer edit summaries to explain your own reverts; see for example the history at Bernard Heuvelmans, which brought me back to your talk page today). I see below that you have undertaken to disengage from that editor's work, and more broadly from judging other editors, and I hope you will, because it seems your judgement tends to be hasty and overly absolute, and especially since you've been participating a lot at AN/I, this could discourage other editors, who may be more conflict-averse; after all, we are all volunteers. If you want to fight vandalism, it's easy enough to find the real thing. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to User talk:Anthony Bradbury

In this edit you removed a perfectly standard request to a deleting admin to reconsider.You used the rather aggressive edit summary DO not harass the closing admin - take it to WP:DRV In this edit you again removed the complaint, with the summary Removing persistent harassment by a user on thin ice. The user was in fact not on thin ice, as WP:DRV says in the instructions: Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. Indeed in the past DRVs have been summarily closed because nominators failed to raise the matter with teh deleting admin or AfD closer.

In my view these edit summaries were a violation of WP:CIVIL and the reverts were a violation of WP:TPO as they do not fit any of the limited exceptions to the rule against editing or removing the posts of other editors, stated as Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note .... The reverts also hindered WP:ADMINACCT, which says: Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed. Omanlured was making just such a query of Anthony Bradbury, and your revert reduced the chance that Anthony Bradbury would properly respond.

It seems to me that you owe an apology for these reverts to both Omanlured and Anthony Bradbury, and should be careful not to make such reverts in future. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an isolated case. Combined with this user's other edits to User talk:Omanlured, every one of which looks absolutely baseless, this looks like deliberate, targeted harassment. I expect an explanation forthwith. —Cryptic 14:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. i was concerned about the potential for bludgeoning (this user has a tendency to make sweeping changes to articles or talk pages without leaving detailed edit summaries and for edit warring over content, not to mention the paragraph long screed left on User:Anthony Bradbury's page). If the consensus is that I was wrong to be concerned about WP:COPYVIO (as evidenced by Cryptic's unilateral recreation of Kahler v. Kansas...) then i accept that and will not challenge that deternination. If my attempts to discuss the wp:bludgeon issue and guide the user in another direction were unwanted or construed harassment then I apologize to both users affected and will steer clear of them from now on. Michepman (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather struck by the fact that the last three sections here on your talk page all concern the user Omanlured, on three separate matters, and in all three cases different presumably unrelated users are concerned about your conduct with regards to that user's edits. What gives? Your response, thus far, isn't nearly enough of an explanation. Even now, you're calling one of the politest notes I've even seen the author of a deleted article leave on an administrator's talk page a "screed." Would be that I would receive more such screeds. Mackensen (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't "fair enough". Your conduct was completely unacceptable. You complained at the DRV "it is problematic that there was a rush to open this discussion without giving the closing administrator a chance to weigh in", but the appellant had attempted to discuss with the closing admin, and you twice deleted the appellant's attempt to discuss with the deleting administrator, apparently trying to twist the system both ways. No, that isn't "fair enough", and you had no right to squelch the attempt to communicate with the closing administrator, and likewise no right to complain that the appellant had not tried to discuss, which they had. Your conduct was sufficiently bizarre that I was considering the possibility that your account had been compromised and a troll was impersonating you. Do you really want to be thought of as an editor who is impersonating a troll? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've already conceded that the consensus is against me on this issue Robert McClenon, apologized for my actions, and I have already decided not to interact with that user in the future. I'm not sure what else you want from me at this point, and to be frank this is starting to veer into the realm of bludgeoning and relitigating issues ad nauseum on talk pages which is what contributes the problem in the first place. Michepman (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 2

Be careful when reverting changes on discussion pages- your revert deleted a comment on another topic in addition to restoring the SPA tag that you added to Omanlured's comment. I also don't really see any evidence that that fits the definition of a single purpose account. --Spasemunki (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right that was my mistake. I should have been more careful when working with Twinkle. Thank you for raising this to my attention @Spasemunki: Michepman (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michepman, several Admins above expressed serious concerns regarding your dealings with Omanlured. You stated that "I have already decided not to interact with that user in the future" and accused Robert McClenon of veering "into the realm of bludgeoning" for pointing out how unacceptable your actions were. Just two days and a very small handful of edits later, you are again messing around with Omanlured's edits and inexplicably blaming it on a Twinkle error. This absolutely must stop now.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ponyo - I think that we have an editor who is familiar with one Wikipedia essay, the bludgeon essay, and therefore uses it reasonably and unreasonably to apply to every imaginable situation, including as a way to try to silence all discussion of their conduct or misconduct. You're an administrator; I'm sure you have encountered users like this before. I'm sure you have also encountered users w″ho, for some reason, impersonate a troll. Perhaps you can warn them that a blocking administrator does not always verify that an editor really is a troll before blocking them, but that an editor who impersonates a troll may be blocked anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michepman - It appears that at least User:Ponyo and probably other administrators think that I was not bludgeoning you in continuing to express displeasure with your conduct. It appears that you are trying to wave off serious concerns about your conduct with what is not really an apology so much as a half-apology or a non-apology apology that is qualified by multiple "ifs", without ever actually acknowledging that you were wrong, and with no indication that you have learned anything. You have been lucky in taking advantage (probably deliberately taking advantage) of the policy that blocks are preventive and not punitive, but it appears to me that a preventive block is probably in order because you haven't learned anything. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that I was wrong in my earlier edits with regards to that user, and I would also like to apologize for inappropriately construing your edits above as 'bludgeoning'. What I meant to say was that I understood why the concern was being raised and I am willing to take the steps deemed necessary by the community to make amends for my inappropriate or incorrect behavior, but that continuing to harp on them could be seen as bludgeoning in the future. However, looking back I can see why this might have seemed like an attempt to silence valid criticisms of my behavior and in reflection I should not have brought that up in the context of your reasonable feedback and insight. With regards to the most recent issue, I saw that a user had removed a tag that I had placed on a CfD discussion and I was attempting to revert that edit using Twinkle; however, I accidentally reverted multiple edits made by that user, which included an unrelated edit that I did not intend to reverse. I see that another user has reverted my wrong edit before notifying me, so I did not need to self-revert. Michepman (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per recent discussions here, including the one regarding SPA tagging below, I think you need to step back from attempting to police other editors' actions and concentrate on improving articles.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: i agree. it is not a producfive area for me and I will back away from that activityity now. Michepman (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPA tags

Hi Michepman. I removed a couple SPA tags you made. The ones on Omanlured, you've addressed above, so no need for me to go over that again. However, you also tagged editor Johnpacklambert as an SPA. WP:SPATG says An established editor focusing on a single topic is not an SPA. JPL has over 13-years/360,000 edits. Please don't tag established editors like this as an SPA. Thanks. – Levivich 03:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Michepman (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I have no idea how I could be tagged as an SPA. I have just in the last week edited articles on a very broad range of topics. I have created articles on politicians, religious leaders, places, musicians and much more, and made significant edits on articles on all of the above and more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I have created so many articles, some I forgot I created, like the one on Charles Koffi Diby, a politician from Ivory Coast. I have created articles on people from Japan, the United States, the Democractic Republic of the Congo, Mexico, El Salvador, Brazil and several other countries. Ghana and Nigeria are two major ones I missed in that list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Jeremy Nordquist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bill

Theresa Thibodeau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Big Brothers Big Sisters

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Montclair

With regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotel Montclair, FYI: the building was demolished and replaced by apartments. Djflem (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djflem - That's good i guess. At least it provides housing for undeeserved communities.

WP:ANI

Hello, Michepman,

You do not have a very extensive editing history here and I'd appreciate it if you didn't close complaints that editors bring to ANI. Maybe after a couple thousands of edits and a longer time editing, you will have the experience to close cases, but you don't now. For instance, you didn't know that non-admins have to close cases by including {{nac}} before or after their signature. I hope your good work on Wikipedia continues but please let admins or longtime editors close complaints on noticeboards. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]