DS2434

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear DS2434: welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Wikipedia:Introduction
• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Frequently Asked Questions
  • How do you edit a page?
  • How do you revert to a previous version of a page?
  • What about copyrights?
• Community Portal

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk (discussion) page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. A third option is to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator.

One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!  

Thank you for experimenting with the page New Hampshire Department of Corrections on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Dfrg.msc 23:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nashua Police Department

A tag has been placed on Nashua Police Department, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

There is nothing particularly notable about Nashua's police department, or for that matter most police departments. This article, arguably, is essentially spam, i.e. promoting a group or service. Unless Nashua's police department has done something truly notable (for instance, something to give it worldwide recognition or perhaps even countrywide recognition), then this article should be deleted. It's debatable whether this article should be merged into the Nashua, New Hampshire article as well.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JordanSealy 21:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Henry Margusity

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Henry Margusity, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Henry Margusity. Ford MF (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ohmpandys's adminship

I appreciate the compliment on my RFA. Thanks! Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Hanks

I think you meant for this to go on a different page. - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning to User:I69U

Hi! Just wanted to say that this warning [1] should be on the talk page of I69U. Thanks!-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Happy New Year!

And the same note with respect to User:Kingsword9; vandalism warnings go on the talk page, not the user page. Thanks for taking new page patrol seriously but, as an experienced patroller, I suggest that taking it really seriously and letting it get you angry is liable to have a bad effect on your blood pressure and not much effect on the !@*$(@!# vandal <grin>. Your efforts aren't unnoticed, though... thanks for your hard work. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Juiced ball" theory

I've started a deletion discussion as a formal courtesy. I believe the article is notable, and I would advise you next time to use proposed deletion instead of speedy deletion if you see a similar case in the future - or better yet, since there already was a reference, add a {{refimprove}} or {{notability}} tag and leave it alone otherwise. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm aware that you're a lot newer than me around here (I started editing in 2005), so I don't wish to scare you. :) It's possible that, at the time you saw it, my article had "No assertion of significance," but I don't think so. The reason I'm making a fuss about it is to teach you how important it is not to delete valid articles. If you tag an article for speedy deletion, and a half-asleep administrator deletes it, it stays deleted. If you use proposed deletion, there's a 5-day delay built in to prevent any careless mistakes. If you patrol Special:Newpages, you should use Proposed deletion ({{subst:prod|reason}}) if you're not sure whether the criteria for speedy deletion are applicable. But again, I repeat, don't worry about it. :) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Major Question

Why did you put Robert Moses Middle School up for deletion already!? I just created it, and am going to work on it. Hardyboyz27 (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Warplane-stub}}

Hi - a stub template which you created, Warplane-stub, has been speedily deleted. It was incorrectly formatted to the point where it would have been less work to create it again from scratch than to try to fix what was there. In any case, stub templates already exist which serve the same purpose for which this was presumably designed (e.g., {{Bomber-stub}}). Please note that new stub types should be proposed for discussion prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, to check that they conform to the naming, hierarchy, and use standards of stub templates (as stated at Wikipedia:Stub and elsewhere). Grutness...wha? 00:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, DS2434. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that:

Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. β^_command 13:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nashua cruiser.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Nashua cruiser.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Tom (talk - email) 01:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places stubs

Hi, Sorry for any confusion about the RPHP stubs. I just wanted to let you know I am creating stubs for the sites on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the project to improve coverage of those subjects. Sites listed on the Register are generally considered on their face to be worthy of coverage on wikipedia because the sites need to be notable to be listed on the Register. Swampyank (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

See my followup, in next section within Swampyank. I am a wp:NRHP regular who has advised Swampyank to do better. He is causing more cleanup work for others, when he could easily do better along specific lines that have been suggested directly to him and in discussion about Minimal NRHP article requirements discussion at wt:NRHP. Just because the articles ultimately will be notable does not mean that excessively minimal stubs help. In fact it makes more work for other wp:NRHP editors to clean up after him, it would be better if he did not create these at all in my view. I think it would be appropriate to block Swampyank. If you are an administrator, please go ahead. doncram (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course creating articles involves more "work." It would certainly be easier if they did not exist at all. Swampyank (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Prod of William Parker House

I removed the {{Prod}} tag from the William Parker House, which you proposed for deletion. NRHP listed places are notable, even poorly written stubs. Bad writing is not a valid deletion rationale. Before taking this to AfD, please note that another sub-stub by Swampyank was kept per WP:SNOW. We'll have to clean them up. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Prod tagging

Ehen you propose an article for deletion, please say so in the edit summary as required by WP:PROD. Including the word "prod" is sufficient. Also, please put the Prod tag at the top of the article rather than inserting it in the middle. Finally, when you Prod an article, please consider notifying the original author with a {{prodwarning}} tag as a courtesy. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Signing articles

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as the edit you made to Pearl Street School. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Street School

I also removed the {{Prod}} tag from the Pearl Street School, which you proposed for deletion. My comments above about the William Parker House also apply here. If you have Prod tagged any more NHRP stubs, please consider taking the tags off yourself. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

DS2434 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Excuse me? Why was I blocked until SEPTEMBER?? I have not made any edits worthy of being blocked, nor have I ever been warned. If you look at me edit history, you can see that I have only been helpful in New Page patrolling and Recent Changes patrolling. I ask that this is also reviewed by someone other than jpgordon because he obviously has some sort of problem with me to block me for three months for no reason. Thank you very much.

Decline reason:

You do not appear to be blocked. Kuru ^talk 01:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Oh, I see. You just got caught up in this block of your "friend". How about that? Kuru ^talk 01:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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).

DS2434 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did nothing wrong, and since you can't prove that it was me who was making the edits, this block is unfair. This is a shared IP. *(Making another request because first one was declined becasuse the admin did not notice I was blocked at the time)*

Decline reason:

It is quite clear that you are the one who is responsible for those edits. I assure you, we are not nearly as foolish as you seem to think we are. Please realize that Wikipedia is a serious project and not a place for you to play games. --auburnpilot talk 04:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

DS2434 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

How can you say that it is "quite clear". My roommate (and friend) did it. I obviously don't make disruptive edits because I have an account. This is ridiculous. Again, if you look at my history, I've only been a help to Wikipedia as I've spent time new page and recent changes patrolling.

Decline reason:

Since you have allowed your account to become compromised, per WP:GOTHACKED we must leave it blocked and request that you open a new account if you wish to continue editing. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

Because you've made three unblock requests without making a new argument, and because you have admitted this account is compromised, I have protected the page. Daniel Case (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

penis