User talk:VS6507/Archive 4

Your requested deletion

Hello! You requested that this page be deleted. I could not do that; in most cases it is against Wikipedia policy to delete user talk pages. However, I believe it would be permissible to request deletion of the redirect link from your previous talk page, and that would eliminate the name problem. If you don't know how to do this, ask here or at my talk page. It is OK to delete this message. --MelanieN (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN, can you at least hide all previous revisions of the page that include my full name? VS6507 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask stewards at stewards@wikimedia.org to do it? VS6507 (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I see the problem: even if the redirect page is deleted, the signature would still link to the (nonexistent) redirect page. Yes, I think you would do best to take this to the stewards or bureaucrats via email. Meanwhile I am going to delete the redirect page which I see is already tagged for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • P.S. You might start by contacting User:Vogone, the person who moved your username for you. I see they do have email enabled. --MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • P.S. Be sure they deal with your archives as well. --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN How should I deal with my archives? What should I say to the stewards? Can you give me a hint (you can email me if you want)? VS6507 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Vogone could help you better than I could. They have additional tools as well as a lot more experience with this kind of thing than I have. But basically just explain the situation - that you no longer want your previous username to be visible, that you used to use it in your signature which remains visible despite your new username, and that the problem involves your archives as well as your talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

MelanieN I hope I don't bother you too much, but any tips on getting a mop, and is there any chance for me to get it, considering also that my new username is essentially a code? VS6507 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@VS6507: The fact that your name is code is not a problem at all; lots of admins have usernames that don't make any particular sense. You would be evaluated on your contributions up to now, which are summarized here. At a quick glance you have the basic qualifications - here for more than a year is good, about 8,000 edits would be a minimum but acceptable to most people. You have one block; that will need explaining but it was a long time ago. There is a chance that your previous username might come up in the WP:RfA discussion, but maybe not; all of your records have transferred to your new name. An important question would be, why do you WANT a mop, what would you do with it that you aren't doing now? If you just want it for its own sake (known as WP:Hat collecting), that will be perceived very negatively by most people. Adminship isn't some kind of prize; it literally is a janitorial thing, giving you the ability to do a lot of unglamorous maintenance tasks. Bottom line: read the various essays like Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. And be sure to read some recent previous RfA discussions, both successful and unsuccessful. The RfA process can be grueling; it's a full week where hundreds of people scrutinize your edits, your attitude, and bring up all kinds of other things including their own pet peeves. It used to be a lot more grueling than it is now, but it's still initimidating. If you are seriously interested after all this, find an admin to coach you and help you prepare. Some such admins are listed here. Do NOT approach them until after you have done the reading and self-examination that I have suggested here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

speedy nomination

Three for Happiness is a specific film by a specific director. Since it is possible to tell what the article is about, it does not fit into criterion A1, no context. Stubbs are acceptable at WP. Please read, carefully, WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There is solely a single short sentence in the article, as far as I'm concerned that's not enough to tell if the article is notable or not. VS6507 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the article is inadequate, but that's irrelevant to A1, which is the criteion you used . A1 is onlyfor cases where you cannot determine from the information what the subject is. The elegant speedy criterion related to importance is A7, and A7 does not even It does not require notability to pass speedy, only a plausible indication of significance. And A7 does not apply films or other creative works, regardless of their importance. Anything else must be decided at AfD, not speedy. Speedy is only for unquestionable deletions. Please re-read WP:CSD, with attention to the exact details, and WP:Deletion policy. The interpretation of speedy criteria is discussed exhaustively in the archives of WT:CSD. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Le Grand Robert Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Le Grand Robert Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ivan Ljuba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Brother. 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) 12:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Signature

You have customised your signature in such a way that it no longer shows your username, which is confusing. Please see Wikipedia:Signatures#CustomSig. Thank you. William Avery (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

William Avery. Well, I don't think that it's confusing. It's only a red link, and that's some of the basic things here on Wikipedia. You might want to take a look at Help:Content. Kind regards, and happy editing! Alex (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It's nothing to with redlinks. The point is that "a customised signature should make it easy to identify the user name", and you are not User:Alex, but User:VS6507. William Avery (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

My signature code was and still is [[User:VS6507|Alex]] Alex (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Please change it so that the username is visible. William Avery (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Obama

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, yeah, I know. I didn't want to do anything wrong, aarrgh! I didn't violate the WP:3RR, did I? Alex (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If you insert that material again, you will. Although it's unlikely you'll gain consensus for your addition, you'll have to use the talk page to discuss. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me with this? I mean there is nothing wrong with material right? If you watch the video, you can see that he has all of the child murders by drone attacks REFERENCED by the main-stream media articles (at least 137). So would it be satisfactory if I had all those references to confirm the statement? As for terror Tuesday the ref is TheNYT, I think that's OK. They've actually complained for the tone of the material, but we shouldn't be bias to exclude any criticism of the President. I mean, in China and Soviet Russia they did it. Alex (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a question of weight. There's probably coverage of Obama's actions and statements every single day not to mention countless opinion pieces and analyses. The article summarizes a tiny fraction of those. You need to show this is important enough to go in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)