User talk:Mr. Guye/Archive 17

Hey there, I just removed HTML comments at Wikipedia:Redirect that you had just edited. Your change popped up in my watchlist and led me to wonder why the notes are still there at all since the section is now transcluded from another page. I mentioned in my edit summary that the second note was pointy, I just wanted to leave a note here to further explain that I don't think your edit was pointy, in case that wasn't clear. I just don't see the need to advise anyone before editing a section that they can't edit from that page anyway (editors who edit the transcluded section won't see the note at all). Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ivanvector: Ok. Thank you for communicating.--— Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 21:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Guye. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of The Flying Scotsman in Australia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to films or TV programmes. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have reverted the BLPPROD you tagged on Yoon ji-kyeon. This is a clear, unambiguous case for CSD-A7. Before patrolling pages, please read the tutorial. If you are unable to decide on the correct type of tag to use on an article, please leave it for another patroller - all your patrolls have to be checked again by an authorised Reviewer anyway. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not place the {{Controversial}} tag on articles that have been stable for years, such as The Spear (painting). Also note that there is a different tag for when the controversy is about the subject of the article, not the article itself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67: What other template?— Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 08:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained in the template documentation in the "See also" section. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not tag articles for speedy deletion less than 15 minutes after they are created, except for copyvios, attack pages, and other truly urgent matters. It has the effect of discouraging new editors, see

Niteshift36 has removed your underlinking note at GEO Group. I left this note removing to a previous removal of text by Niteshift 36, and my observations: @Niteshift36:, @Parkwells:, @C.J. Griffin:, @Lockley:, @Ctaylor661:, @WhisperToMe:, Restored details of chronic and extreme mismanagement at Walnut Grove, unjustifiably deleted by Niteshift36. This editor has made 20 removals of text added by many editors this year, yet no additions or corrections. In the past four years, Niteshift has made 77 removals of negative information about this corporation's behavior, what have usually constituted massive amounts of well sourced edits by other Wikipedians, and made only four miniscule additions to the article. This seems to be the quintessence of POV, IMHO. Activist (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Activist (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I noticed that you were not so keen on my article. That is fine, but it is a little harsh to label it a hoax, when I provided a picture with two basic ingredients. Comment please? --LiquidGoodness (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LiquidGoodness: I found nothing online that suggested this subject exists. Furthermore, the source you gave didn't mention this so-called "beverage". — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you something, Mr Guye.. Do you have limes in your fridge? --LiquidGoodness (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LiquidGoodness: Maybe, but that is irrelevant. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will take that as a yes. Did you know that if you produce urine, you could use those limes to garnish a Urine Lime? Would you be willing to try such a beverage? --LiquidGoodness (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LiquidGoodness:No. And the hoax part is your claim that many people serve it. But anyways, subjects you invented yourself w/o a credible claim to significance aren't notable anyways. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Guye and thanks for signing up as a DRN volunteer. I hope you have already read

@

DRN/V, then that's OK.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey Guye, you are welcome to

WP:DRN as a volunteer! There is no set standards for experience required to be a volunteer here and your prior experience at RFC, ANI and others is sufficient for this. I hope to see you mediating some cases soon. Make sure you are watching the noticeboard amd its talk page to stay updated. Feel free to disturb me if you need any help. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Satirical essay has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add a {{update}} tag to Melodie Crittenden? There's really nothing to update. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Because the most recent source was from 2008. We cannot allow BLPs to be potentially 9 years out of date. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But nothing else has been said about her in the intervening years. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

lasting importance if no one talks about her anymore. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Mr. Guye Thank you for volunteering at the

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

. The community appreciates your help. You are receiving this message to let you know of a couple of important changes at the noticeboard.

You are receiving this message because you are a volunteer at the

Hey there @Mr. Guye: In the edit summary for I Take This Woman you wondered why I coded the intro. It was to take a perfectly good disambiguation page off of the Dormant Pages list by making an innocuous edit. That you followed up made it even better. Of course, the list hasn't been updated since then so it hasn't cleared off. Is there a way to protect a page from the Dormant list? — Myk Streja ^{[citation needed]} 19:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Myk Streja: I have no idea how to do this, but I am also interested in how to 'protect' a page from the list, or better yet, force an update of the Dormant Pages list. Thanks for communicating. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Guye If I ever find out how, I'll share. — Myk Streja ^{[citation needed]} 23:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you had shown interest in volunteering at the

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I noticed you flagged a section on Creflo Dollar's page with {{non sequitur}}. I've fixed up the offending section, thanks for pointing it out! For future reference, that's not what "non sequitur" properly means, and in this case a better tag would have probably just been {{Confusing}}, with the same reason.

It does make sense - the dates were out of sequence, and "non sequitur" does literally translate to something like "not sequential" - but non sequitur has a specific meaning. It refers to something that is introduced out of context, that doesn't make sense with the preceding statement. As noted on the Please Clarify page, the tag is used to mark "individual mentions of someone or something in an out-of-context way, the relevance of which is unclear". The section marked did make sense in relevance and context, but the dates were wrong and thus confusing.

Thanks again for the notice, and for contributing! --The Human Spellchecker (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gene Hernandez. Since you had some involvement with the Gene Hernandez redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zama American High School alumni, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —swpb^T 17:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]