Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Salvidrim! (talk | contribs) at 16:25, 24 October 2013 (New Message (simulated automatically as part of The Misplaced Pages Adventure)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please Help

I am the owner of a company/product page you deleted. I apologize for not being wiki-savvy. I did not create the page, our users did, but would like to help have it restored and improved. We have a dedicated userbase and have been working for them for 7 years to grow and improve our product, so I am not understanding why it is deleted rather than allowed to be improved if the citings were old. The page was Onverse. I would really appreciate an email regarding this, but will check back here as well. Please help me out as this is a huge deal for us as an indie studio trying to make a living. Steve Pierce - CEO - Onverse - steve@onverse.com. Thank you very much!

StevePierceII (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The citings weren't just old, they are mostly primary. There were not enough independent, reliable resources covering the subject to establish notability. Also, restoring the article because "it's a huge deal for our company" suggests a conflict of interest and the intent to advertise, neither of which are appropriate here. On a personal note, a Misplaced Pages article isn't going to generate significant awareness of your company or products, so you shouldn't rely on that. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not an advertising ploy. The removal of the article was brought to my attention by members of our community because it is a place they would send new users to to learn more about the origins of the game and company. It's unique and important for people who want to learn more because it was a unique feat at the time and continues to be because of the fact that we built/build it with only a few people and our own resources, which gives them a perspective on why the game is the way it is. All I am asking is to improve the article to change what you are saying is wrong with it, rather than delete it. It fits as much as any other company or product into Misplaced Pages, you're just saying the citings need to be updated. It's been years since the original citings probably and there are plenty of more recent, non-primary citings available. StevePierceII (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please provide links to this recent, non-primary references; I also recommend drafting the article through our article creation review process to make be able to work on it and have it moved to an actual article once ready. Note that if you want to send users to page with information about your product, it is highly preferable to have a page on your website with information about your product, as you would then have full liberty over its content, and users would not even have to leave your website. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for being prompt in your responses. I really appreciate it. Is the original article available so I can see for myself the original citing and content? Are you saying it would be best to submit it as an entirely new article? It would be easiest to be able to take it as a starting point to re-submit or just validate the new citing? Sorry, this is my first time using/editing Misplaced Pages. It's a pretty in-depth learning crub for an inexperienced editor.StevePierceII (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've been watching this discussion with great interest, as I'm new to Misplaced Pages as well. I was drawn to this talk page through my own interaction with Salvidrim! and I've started an in-depth discussion about the "Onverse" issue in the Teahouse as a way of learning about Misplaced Pages culture and community in general. In response to the suggestion that information about this game be kept on the game's own website, should the same suggestion be made for all the other games listed in the list of Machintosh games that was linked to the "Onverse" page? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 22:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The issue is more Onverse's notability: You seem to be familiar with policy, so I'm assuming you're familiar with WP:N and WP:V; the issue is not one of deletionism or even of us not wanting Onverse to have a page; the issue is that there are no independent, verifiable sources on the subject.

The list you linked is a swamp and probably something that WP:VG will want to take a peek at to address. There is a similar problem in WP:DOG with our List of dog breeds. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 23:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand that this was originally about "notability". My question related specifically to Salvidrim's suggestion that information about Onverse should be kept off Misplaced Pages entirely, and maintained on the game's own website instead. Why would that be suggested for one game but not for all the others on that list? Wouldn't it be better, rather than going around deleting perfectly good information, to actually help improve the article? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 23:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If there are no sources, there would be no way to improve the article. That, I presume, is why the article was deleted. If you feel that there are other games on that list that should be deleted, you can nominate them yourself. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 00:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest, I did a quick Google search myself, and came across this article which seems to have been picked up by other sources as well, such as Reuters. I've had a look at WP:IRS and it would seem to me that Reuters would be a reliable source, even if Accesswire might not be. Admittedly, the source from Reuters is dated 24-Jul-13, which is after the AfD was closed, on 1-Jul-13. I'm sure that with a bit more digging, I could find many more sources. I'm not advocating for a repeal of the AfD, I'm just trying to understand this whole process, as a new Wikipedian. It seems to me in this case that it was just easier for other editors to delete a page on Misplaced Pages than try to improve it. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 00:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that counts as an independent source as it's a "brief announcement of a merger or sale" --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 01:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, as a new Wikipedian, it seems to me that a failure to acknowledge Reuters as an independent, verifiable source is deeply troubling. Surely setting such a high standard of verifiability is turning prospective new editors away from Misplaced Pages? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 01:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't speak to the reliability of Reuters, the issue is that a short blurb like that would not establish any kind of notability. It would be the same if the blurb was on CNN or the BBC. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 02:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@StevePierceII:: I have just e-mailed a the most recent version of the Onverse article.

@AugurNZ:: Don't put words in mouth. I never "suggested that information about Onverse should be kept off Misplaced Pages entirely". In fact, I even proposed that it should be drafted through our article creation review process and also proposed an off-wiki alternative that might be preferable in order to have complete editorial control over the content. I'm not particularly for or against the idea of having an article about Onverse and I haven't researched the topic nearly enough to express an opinion either way. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Tikuko:Wouldn't the fact that Reuters (who have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments) publish the claim that "Onverse has approximately 600,000 subscribers" make it notable? I'd have thought that 600,000 subscribers is a fairly notable amount!

@Salvidrim: Apologies for misinterpreting your comment that "it is highly preferable to have a page on your website" (emphasis mine). To me, that certainly sounds as though you are suggesting that Misplaced Pages is not the place for an article about this game, which seems somewhat contrary when there are plenty of other games already listed. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 03:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

It still isn't notable coverage. There are other organizations of similar membership that don't, to my knowledge, have wikipedia pages, because people haven't written enough about them; for example there is almost nothing written about the World Dog Show, so I cannot expand the article, despite the fact that I could easily triple its size; and I believe ABRA doesn't presently have a page either. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 04:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

By that logic, there shouldn't be any pages at all on Misplaced Pages that pertain to New Zealand, as our total population is so small compared to America's population. Any product having 600,000 subscribers down here would definitely be notable by New Zealand's standards. If your argument is accurate, TKK, then notability seems to be VERY subjective, and a very weak method of determining whether or not an article should have a place on Misplaced Pages. Also, I didn't understand your comment about the World Dog Show, sorry, as it seems to have plenty of references listed already, and has a page on Misplaced Pages, and is not under threat of deletion. How does that compare to Onverse? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 05:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This is what I have put together so far as far as sources. I can verify that none of these were created by us (except the one press release specified as by us below). I'd be happy to narrow them down to only the most important that gives the article the sources needed to make it a legitimate contribution to WP. There has got to be enough information here to at least put it on par with other similar products. As mentioned at WP:VG/S finding good references for video games is a difficult process. Virtual worlds are even harder because it is a niche industry that doesn't have things like print media, or long-established sites dedicated to the subject and "verified as reliable by WP editors and admins.

So what is my next step? I really appreciate the discussion and help so far.

Macworld Article "considered to meet reliability requirements" at WP:VG/S http://www.macworld.com/article/1145974/onverse.html

MMORPG.com "not been discussed at sufficient length to achieve consensus" at WP:VG/S http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/466/Onverse.html http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/466/feature/3583

Review and Game page - Softpedia "not been discussed at sufficient length to achieve consensus" at WP:VG/S http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/mac/Onverse-Review-129606.shtml http://games.softpedia.com/get/Online-Games-Clients/Onverse.shtml

Inside Mac Games - "considered to meet reliability requirements" at WP:VG/S - Also platform specific http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ArticleID=18061 http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=38728

A well known virtual world writer with her review on Onverse. http://arianeb.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/a-quick-peek-at-onverse/

CNET - "considered to meet reliability requirements" at WP:VG/S http://download.cnet.com/Onverse-PC/3000-2115_4-75065912.html

PC World - "not been discussed at sufficient length to achieve consensus" at WP:VG/S http://www.pcworld.com/article/188165/article.html

More Independent Reviews www.squidoo(dot)com/onverse-review (I guess Squidoo is a blacklisted site for some reason. so took out the link) http://www.dryesha.com/2010/06/video-review-onverse-trailer.html

Association of Virtual Worlds: http://network.associationofvirtualworlds.com/profiles/blogs/onverse-1

Better Business Bureau Business Page http://www.bbb.org/central-northern-western-arizona/Business-Reviews/internet-gaming/onverse-in-tempe-az-1000014084

Interview with Garage Games, makers of the engine we used. http://www.garagegames.com/community/blogs/view/18217

Independent source writing their own take on Onverse, plus an interview I did specifically for their site. http://onversefanz.wordpress.com/onverse-help/ http://onversefanz.wordpress.com/category/interviews/

Press release from another company: http://www.safecom.net/press-41/ - not our release

Press Release from us: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/14/idUS194721+14-Oct-2010+MW20101014

Do video blogs and or gameplay videos count as viable sources? We have lots of those out there. StevePierceII (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone that can help continue this conversation and point me in the right direction? StevePierceII (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• As mentionned before, your best bet is to go through our article creation review process, where you can draft and improve the article with your sources and it will be reviewed. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 20:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't the easiest thing be to improve the article that was already in place, review that, and un-delete it? StevePierceII (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm suggesting. I e-mailed you a copy of the article that was in place, you are welcome to improve on it, have it reviewed, and then become an article again once/if suitable. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy 2nd Wiki-birthday!

	Happy birthday!
	Hope you have a great day! TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 00:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

You've only been here 2 years?! Wow, thought it was longer. Anyways, congrats! Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• The account is older. I've only started editing on September 19th, 2011. I've yet to really consider myself as "editing actively", though... hehe. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

IP at it again

Hello Salvidrim! I just warned an IP vandal (121.96.10.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), and I noticed you had warned and blocked them several times before. They keep resuming as soon as their block ends, so I just wanted to let you know they have continued again right after your one month block expired. Thanks, DarkToonLink 10:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. Escalating... :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 11:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your thanks

I found it rather humorous you thanked me for this. Wasn't sure if you really enjoy my antics, or if you were being sarcastic, but either way, I laughed. Hope all is well. Sergecross73 msg me 02:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I love randomly abusing the "thank" function. Don't search for meaning. ^_^ :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Haha, even better! Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming newsletter

Hi Salvidrim, we've got a WP:VG newsletter coming due in less than a week and we're still missing a featured editor. This comes very much at the last minute, but would you be willing to give an interview for the newsletter this quarter? The newsletter is due October 3 so we'd have to rush. I'd probably set it up by tonight and then drop you a note and you'd have Oct 1-3 to respond. I'd have Oct 2 to ask any follow-up questions, and I guess you'd have the 3rd to respond to those. It might be kind of hectic so if you don't have the time right now then that's completely understandable. If you don't have the time for this quarter, would you be interested in an interview next quarter or later? Again, sorry to spring this on you so late. -Thibbs (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be honoured; I might not have time for anything "live", but if it's by e-mail or something similar I'd be able to find the time to do it. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Great! I'll post the questions in the draft right now. You can just edit the interview section to answer the questions directly. Thanks again for doing this on such short notice. -Thibbs (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh and feel free to change and edit around any of my questions if they don't apply or if I've accidentally mischaracterized anything. -Thibbs (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey I got the note and your additions look great! I've given Torchiest word that you're finished with it so he's going to go over it to copy edit and then it's ready for publication. Thanks again for your help! -Thibbs (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I should be the one thanking for the honor. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2013

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2013, the project has:

Content

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 11:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• HAHAHAHAHA! My mom just sent me a message saying "I'm proud of you... Salvidrim. ;)" :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Good read. ^_^ Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Silver Lake Village (Michigan)

Hi. You closed WP:Articles for deletion/Silver Lake Village (Michigan) (2nd nomination) to fulfill this request at WP:Administrators' noticeboard. May I ask why you determined redirect (no deletion) and full protection to be the consensus outcome?

• The count was 8 delete to 3 merge (the AfD count is missing Technical 13). I am interested in how you chose to weight them.
• The sources are obviously terrible. Floquenbeam pointed out that they were worse than before, and I evaluated the three best sources as barely usable.
  • Since the sources were uniformly poor, I chose to skip writing a detailed analysis at the AfD. Of the 17 sources in the version at AfD:
    • 7 are business/corporate websites confirming that their locations exist
    • 3 are LoopNet listings or search results; 1 more is on the similar "online commercial real estate network", Cityfeet
    • WaterWinterWonderland.com is a Michigan tourism fan site
    • Lake Effect Car Wash business listing on Patch, which seems to be a local news/blog/social media startup
    • Silver Lining Rewards Program on Fenton Be Closer.com, run by Fenton City Hall
• None of the merge supporters specified what should be merged. I challenged Candleabracadabra with the WP:Merge what? essay, and he did a merge, but I did not respond due to Kww's revision deletion. The merged text was reduced but still relied on the inappropriate sources.
• Thincat referred to WP:PRESERVE, but WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011) determined that WP:PRESERVE does not confer extra weight to a merge recommendation.

Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Deletion, merging and redirecting have the same effect on end-users: the AfD'ed title is no longer an article, which is something everyone can agree was the needed result. In cases where there is consensus to delete with suggestions to merge and redirect (or userfy), and there is no copyvio or other violation concerns that would support a supression of the former article's revisions, I find it preferable to implement the consensus by redirecting (or userfying) and letting users merge what they feel should be merged, if anything. If you don't think anything should be merged, don't merge any content from the AfD'ed article. If you object to edits from others to the target page, discuss them on the target page. And as noted, I would've salted the deleted title as requested in the AfD, and only applied the same principle to the redirected title. I think this is really a non-issue with little impact; whether the revisions are supressed through deletion or hidden through redirection only changes whether a non-administrator can view the revisions in question, and perhaps make use of them. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, merging and redirecting are forms of "keep", which are substantially different from delete. I have a hard time seeing any consensus other than "delete" in that AFD myself, especially given that the material is essentially identical to the previously deleted article.—Kww(talk) 04:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• *shrugs* I don't necessarily agree with that perspective but if that's the current consensus, I'll work that way for the time being. Closure changed and implemented. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for amending your close. By the way, if you decide that you prefer WP:Deletion review over extended discussion here, please let us know. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I am not sure that was the best way to avoid DRV! Firstly, concerning the criticism of my selective "merge", the close of WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect makes no mention (even implied mention) of WP:PRESERVE. It says "the underlying strength of the argument for the position is what matters most". Kww said not much weight should be given to merge without a statement of what to merge and S Marshall thought extra weight could be derived from WP:PRESERVE. Most people ignored this aspect. I argued "as Candleabracadabra suggests" who said merge "the key bits to the Fenton, Michigan article. Leave out all the directoryesque details such as store listings and such." Not terribly specific, I agree. And he presumably made (improperly) a highly specific proposal but it was deleted and so was not available for review. Flatscan was broad-minded enough to suggest what might be merged "The Flint Journal piece on Fenton from the old article is the best source. The Silver Lake Park page on the City of Fenton website might support a sentence about the park." And, while we are addressing weak arguments, how about Flatscan's "According to WP:Places of local interest (essay), the relevant guideline is WP:Notability (organizations and companies). The sourcing is completely insufficient to support this article." Everyone agreed an article wasn't justified. However, the argument about lack of notability does nothing at all to argue against redirect or merge. In an article on a non-notable topic, there may be material entirely suitable for merge. Kww's delete argument was strong (but support from policy is dubious) but the close did not seem to address the G4 argument in any way at all.

I think you were wrong to give way to this special pleading without giving others a chance to have their say. I suggest you revert the close completely and leave it to someone else to do. Alternatively relist or DRV. Thincat (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the RfC, the numbered choices in the prompt were selected to span the spectrum of expected responses. S Marshall wrote at User talk:Flatscan/RfC draft: Merge, redirect at AfD, "I would put myself at about 2.5". Option 4 is "same weight". Options 2 and 3, which explicitly reference WP:PRESERVE, were not found to reflect consensus.
• I'll grant that my delete argument was based on notability (and weak against merge), but I replied to Candleabracadabra's merge recommendation in the same edit. I should have written more criticism of the sources at the AfD.
• My request only asked Salvidrim! to explain his reasoning, although a reader could reasonably infer that I would be willing to go to DRV from its length. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The pre-first-AfD diff and the post-recreation-diff are IMO sufficiently similar to raise G4 concerns, and yet sufficiently different to reasonably oppose to a G4 deletion. And as mentioned in my close -- you want the contents of the deleted article to potentially merge it somewhere else? Fine by me, I can send them to you and you can do whatever you want with them. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'll think what to do which will also give a chance for other people to chime in here. I would be pretty sure a G4 deletion would have been overturned at DRV but certainly there would have be a body of support for G4 deletion. See I personally would have been happy with your original protected redirect retaining history. I can see no valid reason for blocking access to the material. I agree that nobody thought an article was justified. If I decide not raise the principle then I will ask you for the deleted content. However, if the wording were to be used we would need to maintain attribution in some way. Many thanks. Thincat (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am here because I believe that the consensus was delete and that the merge arguments were insufficient to move it to redirect. Rather than merging inappropriate tone and sources from the AfD'd article, I would write fresh from the 2–3 passable refs, allowed by WP:Copying within Misplaced Pages#Where attribution is not needed, Bare references. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Naqvi Orientation

Nannadeem (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC) Would you be kind enough to tell me why the Article Naqvi Orientation deleted. If you find observations/reservations can be pointed out for further improvement. Please remember Science does not have language or religion/region. And nothing in this universe is new nor can be new whether matter/words or pictures - things we say new are things which already existed.Nannadeem (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Please ask your questions in the current discussion of this issue: you can do so by clicking here. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Nannadeem (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC) I have read the observations/noting of admins. Thanks for all. It is my surprise to say word Community used in terms of Biosphere sense. see value of Ist Naqvi family (i.e. Imam Naqi & his sons). With ref to my religious accountability ok its fact. This is my first Article. I would contribute three more Articles (i) POLE an energy base article (ii) Big Bang and its values in the 04 religions (iii) Religions is/are for us. So, being a human, I need encouragement by pointing out mistakes or misunderstanding, if I persist then deletion option is justifiable.

re: wikiRaese412 deletion

Salvidrim, hi, thanks for requested help in deleting wikiRaese412 (for potential 'confusion' with using 'wiki' in name) and moving content to user: Freeryde007. I was trying to consolidate with Freeryde007 user name, yet I am unable to login as it says 'no email is associated with it.' Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRaese412 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I only deleted the broken link User:WikiRaese412/sandbox because it was redirecting to your former article submission at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Theodore H. Schwartz (2), which was deleted after you blanked it. And I see that you've logged in your new User:Freeryde007 account after posting this, so I assume you were able to login after all. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Orthotylus flavosparsus

FYI, I reversed your speedy deletion of Orthotylus flavosparsus. Mishae put it up for deletion (and he wasn't really sole editor, so G7 probably shouldn't have applied, but whatever), and then re-created it under the belief that this would save space on the server somehow. See and for discussion. I ran across it while dealing with yet another speedy nomination from him (which I declined) and I apologize for not discussing with you first. Best, Mackensen (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's fine, it really IS a rather bad reason to delete an article since deleted revisions stay stored anyhow. And I did analyze the history and found that Mishae was the only significant editor of the article, but must've missed this diff which invalidates G7. I see you've taken up to AN/I and wish you the best of lucks in getting this all sorted out. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Mario Kart: Double Dash‼

You accidentally reverted the title back from non-unicode version, Mario Kart: Double Dash!! Explanations? --George Ho (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Not accidentally, AND I explained it on the talk page. "!!" is used as a parameter in some table, thus not using the unicode character breaks formattin. It was probably the reason for the initial move but wasn't explained clearly and nobody raised that issue in the RM. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Pratyya Ghosh/B S Ajaikumar

Hey Salvidrim!, I've put that in my userspace for creating. Why it got deleted and Can you please restore that?--Pratyya (শারদীয় শুভেচ্ছা) 14:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You moved it to B S Ajaikumar on September 13th, where it was nominated for CSD per WP:CSD#A7. @GiantSnowman: instead redirected it to HCG Hospitals. You moved HCG Hospitals to User:Pratyya Ghosh/HCG Hospitals on September 16th; a bot automatically retargeted the redirect B S Ajaikumar from HCG Hospitals to User:Pratyya Ghosh/HCG Hospitals, and it was then deleted per WP:CSD#R2 as a mainspace redirect pointing towards userspace. The only deleted revision present at User:Pratyya Ghosh/B S Ajaikumar is a redirect to the now-deleted B S Ajaikumar per A7 (then R2), so there is nothing to restore at that title. Do you want me to reuserfy the deleted revisions of B S Ajaikumar? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

More of that "vigilance" stuff

Your signature still links to User talk:Salvidrim. Rgrds. --64.85.216.92 (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Since it redirects, does it really matter? --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 16:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Still.... how did nobody tell me before?! Haha, at least now it's fixed. Thanks IP! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Misplaced Pages:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Misplaced Pages Adventure!

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Misplaced Pages Adventure Start Page
• The Misplaced Pages Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Misplaced Pages Help pages

-- 19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)