User talk:Mr. Guye/Archive 2

Page you think should be deleted.

I meant MfD of course. But you knew that, right? --

talk) 01:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

"No! This Can't Be Happening To Me!" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "No! This Can't Be Happening To Me!". Since you had some involvement with the "No! This Can't Be Happening To Me!" redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shearonink (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of
List of euphemisms

List of euphemisms during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cruel World, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Bachelor and American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of euphemisms listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

List of euphemisms. Since you had some involvement with the List of euphemisms redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shearonink (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Note

Please do not mark people's userpages for deletion based solely on their inactivity, or on their being blocked sockpuppets. Please do not create userpages for people which say "delete this userpage because the user is inactive". Please do not mark articles on mountains as "not notable"; mountains are considered notable by default.

Thank you for trying to help. DS (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad morality listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bad morality. Since you had some involvement with the Bad morality redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shearonink (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actions through Vice listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Actions through Vice. Since you had some involvement with the Actions through Vice redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shearonink (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite of moral good listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Opposite of moral good. Since you had some involvement with the Opposite of moral good redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shearonink (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mal-hearted listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mal-hearted. Since you had some involvement with the Mal-hearted redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shearonink (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poor ethics listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Poor ethics. Since you had some involvement with the Poor ethics redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shearonink (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical Evil listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ethical Evil. Since you had some involvement with the Ethical Evil redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shearonink (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring laws listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ignoring laws. Since you had some involvement with the Ignoring laws redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shearonink (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Law violation listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Law violation. Since you had some involvement with the Law violation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Shearonink (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello

As I am sure you can tell from the Notices on your talk page, I am concerned about some of your recent edits, especially a number of the redirects you've recently created as well as some articles you have tagged with multiple maintenance templates. If the consensus of the editorial community is that the some or all of the redirects be kept, that's fine with me...I think it is a good idea to work through the Wikipedia processes and get others' opinions about edits. It is important to me to keep Wikipedia's worldwide readership in mind when I am editing...a Wikipedia edit that might not seem particularly useful to me might be crystal-clear to someone else and vice-versa, so I tend to involve the various Wikipedia processes to gather that consensus.
Also, you have tagged some articles recently with multiple maintenance templates...if you can take the time to place various templates on an article, perhaps you could instead spend some of that time correcting these issues you have found? An example of this is Assistant practitioner a stub-article that you recently tagged with 6 maintenance templates.
I do admire your zeal for editing Wikipedia and didn't want you to feel like I was somehow being ungracious or mean by nominating some of the redirects you created for

WP:RFD. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and we are supposed to be bold when we do so, but when a fair number of our edits are being questioned or other editors need additional clarification about our edits on multiple occasions then perhaps it might be a good idea to ask, before an edit..."Is it necessary? Does this content help Wikipedia? Does this edit conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?" Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Nefariousness listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nefariousness. Since you had some involvement with the Nefariousness redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious conduct listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Malicious conduct. Since you had some involvement with the Malicious conduct redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Goddess of Mental Fortitude listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Greek Goddess of Mental Fortitude. Since you had some involvement with the Greek Goddess of Mental Fortitude redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.

Greek: "a healthy mind in a healthy body listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Greek: "a healthy mind in a healthy body. Since you had some involvement with the Greek: "a healthy mind in a healthy body redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.