This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

---

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi Tomstar81,

I created the wiki entry on Kalika Yap, and I noticed you have nominated the article on Kalika Yap for possible deletion and are on the fence about notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalika_Yap

Thank you for this comment. Based on the rewrite and new notability added to the article, shown below, would you consider removing the deletion tag from the wiki entry? I appreciate your contribution to wikipedia and look forward to discussing further if need be.

Kalika Yap has just been featured as part of global fashion brand BCBG's New Guard campaign featuring "the county's most interesting women." Please see https://vimeo.com/120082676 and http://www.bcbg.com/Online-Magazine-February-2015/magazine-2015-02,default,pg.html (pages 30-35) out this month as reference. Kalika is featured along with Kiva founder Jessica Jackley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Jackley), TechCrunch co-editor Alexia Tsotsis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexia_Tsotsis), and CBS journalist Alison Harmelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Harmelin). Rex Freiberger (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings TomStar81,

I am sure you are quite busy, but I received this message from you and would like to restore this page.

"This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

• 06:42, 19 February 2015 TomStar81 (talk | contribs) deleted page AK Ikwuakor (G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user (Johngalea24) in violation of ban or block)"

If you are unable to restore the page, may I at least receive the information in the Wikipedia article? I was not the editor and I am trying to contact the editor to repair the issues. I hope you understand.

Is it possible to communicate through email instead? If so, could you contact me at <redacted>.

Thank You!

Dualthreat13 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)dualthreat13

Gparyani (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

. . . alternative accounts do you have and are you willing to name them? Writegeist (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

TomStar, I remember back in February you discussed the concept of putting me up at RFA with me. I'm on springbreak now and have the time to participate in the process. Someone is going to have to explain my lengthy absence from the site, but outside of that I'm ready to go in if you're still fine with nominating me. Buggie111 (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do not hound legitimate opposition to this RfA. Do not make matters worse. It is unseemly and damaging to your cause. Thank you, with respect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

+1, old friend (and my own RfA nominator!). I like Buggie too, but fifty edits in the last year is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I too want to assume good faith in both the above ask for a nomination, and the decision to then nominate -- but 28 edits in a year, 11 of those in this month, and 77 edits in 13 months -- surely you can understand our puzzlement in this RFA. Mkdw^talk 06:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Dear TomStar81, Can I have your Email address. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerexperts (talk • contribs) 03:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian Fleet Air Arm Museum Op-ed: TomStar81 on submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hi TomStar81,

Thought you might be interested in this SPI as two of the people I believe are linked were previously blocked as socks of TheDevNegi, an investigation you started. This is my 3rd SPI for Richa101091, the obvious sock targets are Indian film related topics. What I have found is that many times these users have already been accused of socks of other users. During the 1st investigation I only listed about 4 accounts, and Check User ended up coming up with about 10 more. This appears to be a HUGE meat/sock farm, so if you can comment or add any info. to help link these accounts that would be appreciated. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I posted this on the Project Military History page but then thought you might miss it as it is a large page, and getting larger it seems with the torrent of abuse and flak I've been getting only because I am suggesting that in several campaigns like the Greco-Italian war, the performance of the Italians is often too maligned and underestimated. Wow! Just for that I've been called all sorts of things. Fortunately I have a thick skin and it flows like water off a duck's back, because I know I am in the right. But it is interesting to see the reactions of editors who appear to be frothing at the mouth because I have challenged their pre-conceived stereotyped views of the Italians.

However TomStar81, your "solution" to lock down the article, I fear is only a temporary solution. Indeed it is really no solution at all. However, I'm ok with it. I am more than happy to be reasonable, but when I in good faith, quote and paraphrase reliable authors who are also eminent academics and historians and who may have a different view to the prevailing one, AND MY EDITS ARE REVERTED FOR SPURIOUS REASONS (OR NO REASON GIVEN) then I will certainly come back to the Military Project board and to you TomStar81 and others, and I will demand fairness and justice from the wiki administrators. Is that reasonable?AnnalesSchool (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry for the disturbance TomStar81, but two quotes say it all: But it is interesting to see the reactions of editors who appear to be frothing at the mouth..., and because I know I am in the right. Continuing base personal attacks (please also check this gem, one of many examples) followed by the conviction that AnnalesSchool is the guardian of the WP:TRUTH. I just hope this disruption ends. The sooner the better. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Torpedoed Japanese destroyer Yamakaze sinking on 25 June 1942.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Vanguard at Faslane 02.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Howdy, I'm reviewing a UTRS unblock request regarding a block placed on ISUPsychlaw (talk · contribs). According to the log, the editor was blocked due to a hard username violation, however I am unclear as to what that may be. Would you be able to provide some insight on this block? Thanks, Nakon 23:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nakon: Maybe the answer is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#ISUPsychlaw. P.S. Sorry for stalking the talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the Epic Barnstar! I appreciate the kind words. --Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 18:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Woman in Gold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epiphany. 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) 09:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the landing at Anzac Cove Op-ed: TomStar81 on the debut of poison gas in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, Tom. You declined this speedy deletion and made a redirect last December. There was actually a pre-existing draft about this person, at Draft:Kyle Dubas. He's had a lot of press, in some of Canada's largest newspapers, first because of his statistical approach to hockey, and second because he is now interim General Manager of the NHL Maple Leafs. Would you agree now that edits under the redirect, which are unsourced and promotional, can be deleted to make way for the draft to be moved to mainspace?—Anne Delong (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tom, Please see WP:ANI#Tendentious editor threatens editors with mentioning them on external attack site concerning this threat by AnnalesSchool. Nick-D (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

Template:Urbanlegend has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh hey! You're still here. I didn't even think of talking to you first about this template. But it's probably non-controversial to delete it, right? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Just to let you know, as the admin who gave Middayexpress a topic ban, that there has been a further development, which I have reported on here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Apollo 13 Service Module - AS13-59-8500.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW it looks like you uploaded the file, by mistake perhaps, locally and not to Commons. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Armbrust: Actually, that was intentional, as I wanted to be able to delete the file in the event that it was not promoted since my admin privileges only apply to en.wikipedia, not to the commons. No doubt because of that foresight on my part of course, the alternate I uploaded ended up being the version that gained consensus. La Vie Est Drôle, eh? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Question: Should the SPI I mentioned on Talk:Fox animated shared universe show that the creator is indeed a sock, I can renominate that page as CSD per WP:CSD#G5, correct? I understand the reason for the current CSD decline, but thought best to ask about this likely outcome of the SPI. Please ping in reply EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 05:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks for the reply! EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 05:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the new technology of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

I see that you protected Global Positioning System due to edit-warring. Are you planning to keep a watch on the talk page for personal attacks, or should another administrator do that? Should I request attention to the article at WP:AN, or will you take care of that?Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This article needs some help - I really don't have the time to fix it all up, am hoping someone like yourself who's in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history & into American military history/American Revolution history can help. Thanks in advance, Shearonink (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Shearonink: I'll see what I can do, but I make no promises. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Anything at all would help, the poor thing's gotten beaten-up lately and has been sadly lacking in references for years. Thank you for whatever you can do. Shearonink (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The Golden Spike image is somewhere between half and two-thirds done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's done! Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Golden Spike

If there's a good one, sure. Which image? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Could I see the one with radar mast? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that radar mast one is a rather bad photoshop. I suspect the censorship may have been removing the radar before photograph. Look at how the "with mast" photo has radically darker colours on the radar mast than anything else in the image. It's a mock-up, not a real uncensored version. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I recommended extension of the edit block for the GPS article. There are people now making proposals to change the now fairly readable equations in the article to equations with a very terse form. This would make the equations less readable and more difficult to understand. Some editors seem to be making changes to the GPS article to make it more like the GNSS article which is very difficult to read. It is like pulling teeth to get an agreement between two editors on even the smallest details and even then a third editor expresses total disagreement. It appears that the best we can do is to extend the edit block so as to prevent further deterioration in the quality of the article. RHB100 (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:HA-SC-98-06983-Crew of M24 along Naktong River front-Korean war-17 Aug 1950.JPEG, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It is considered common courtesy upon reverting edits to at least explain why the action is taken. The fact that a change was undiscussed is no reason to revert, one must at least give a reason, for example the failure to see improvement. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit of permission at Tissue is out of line. I will report you for misuse of administrator privileges if you do not restore it so it can be properly tagged for a move discussion. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please make sure that if you tag a new page for deletion or cleanup, like you did at Pavinlal m.g, that you also make sure that it is mark as reviewed. --I dream of horses (talk to me) (contributions) @ 09:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: I was under the impression that as a auto-confirmed user and an admin simply viewing the page resulted in it being marked as reviewed. Is that not the case? TomStar81 (Talk) 10:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope. You actually have to mark it as reviewed. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding ((Ping|I dream of horses)) to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 11:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: <sigh> Gotcha. I'll try and remember that. (although frankly I remember when we didn't have to mark anything as patrolled. I swear these constant 'helpful' updates are killing us...) At any rate, thanks for the FYI, better it be brought to my attention now than to find it out later in a not-as-understanding setting (like at ANI). TomStar81 (Talk) 20:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to conduct moderated discussion of Battle of the Alamo at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I see that you recently fully protected the article due to edit-warring, and restored the "last good version" of the article. It doesn't look as though the edit-warring was close to 3RR, although it had been going on for a long time. Can you please explain what was the basis for your judgment that a particular version was the "last good version"? Also, would you be willing to consider unlocking the article after less than six months if dispute resolution results in progress? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. So "last good version" is the same as "last stable version", before the edit-warriors got at it. That makes sense. I will see whether the editors are willing to work together in moderated discussion, or whether they do not cooperate. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Any further replies will be at my talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand why I was accused of edit-warring by Maile66, who has ignored the talk page for more than 2 months re: the consensus on the Santa Anna quote. And now instead of engaging in WP:TALKDONTREVERT, this editor has apparently stifled the consensus process by unjustly accusing me of edit-warring and disrupting my attempt at WP:BRD.

Although Maile66 has ignored building consensus on the talk-page, this has not prevented this editor from making off-of-the-talk page comments. The comments can be viewed here under the heading "Ping me if you need me."

Maile66 states to Karanacs about my talk-page comments: "Petty stuff has resulted in a threat that I believe is personal and meant for you. Regardless of why or how, it may have always been personal. Something is not right here. Indeed, other voices are needed..— Maile (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Karanacs then replies that he or she is not worried, while Maile66 makes concluding remarks about a book being reviewed on the talk page ("Santa Anna of Mexico" by Fowler) that Maile66 did not share on the talk page.

Maile66 not only apparently hinders the building-consensus process by belittling my contributions, but poisons the well by casting aspersions about my character to another editor on Battle of the Alamo, behind my back, no less.

Later that same day, at 16:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC), Maile66 made his/her last contact with me on the talk page. This editor responded to my post‎ by defending a book "Alamo Sourcebook 1836" (1998) by Tim J. & Terry S. Todish that I stated doesn't meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP due to its authors having only Bachelor degrees, yet was vetted for FA Battle of the Alamo. After that discussion that was the last I heard of Maile66 for more than 2 months.

Then, the next contact from Maile66 (albeit indirectly) was on 12 July 2015 (UTC) Notice of Edit Warring. In hindsight, this appears to be an example of an "editor who ignores talk page discussions yet...reverts disputed material...and stonewalls discussions" which is a form of disruptive editing.

So, now, having read the evidence, can you please explain why I was reprimanded for edit-warring, a charge I deny? And, if you find that I am not at fault, can you revert the article to the last edit and fully protect it there? I ask this because the article was in the process of WP:BRD as a way to stimulate discussion of a larger edit, per Karanac's comments.

In closing, since 18:09, 23 April 2015, I have been discussing and trying to build consensus on a half-sentence quote from Santa Anna for inclusion in this article, secure in the knowledge that edit warring is not how one reaches consensus (I have never engaged in that type of behavior). Maile66's baseless accusation of edit-warring, and the resulting 6-month protection of the article, may only serve to foster a climate where other editors will be further cowed to contribute edits. I ask that you do not reward Maile66 for his disruptive behavior and lift the protection of the article. MiztuhX (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to share a comment that I posted on Robert McClenon's talk page: "The logic behind the revert is not applicable to this case. This revert is only injurious to my side because it reverts only my edits. There is no reason now for the other party to negotiate in good faith since the revert only reestablishes their skewed version of Battle of the Alamo. I would suggest reverting the article to an earlier point, which includes some of my edits, in order to bring the other party to the negotiating table, per the reasoning of TomStar81."

Also, per WP:3RR: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert" which is what I was basically doing when I was editing Battle of the Alamo, so I don't think the charge of edit warring applies in my case. MiztuhX (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, allow me to expand: If you check the history of Battle of the Alamo page, you will find that my revert is one long, uninterrupted edit. Even when Dawnseeker2000 and Gaarmyvet added their own edits, I did not revert their edits. Per the WP:3RR, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert," this concludes that I am being charged unjustly with edit-warring for essentially making only one revert. (Sorry if I posted this first on Robert McClenon's talk page... It won't happen again, just a little confusing). MiztuhX (talk) 04:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The article references have been improved and those that were misleading have been replaced or fixed. Sol Rezza is an underground artist but with a mayor relevance in the radio art genre and experimental music genre. The article is being edited today to includeas much valid references as possible. Panz4_Troup%C3%A9 (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I see you deleted this article (finally)! I had nominated it for deletion four years ago, but an anonymous user convinced an admin that there was something notable about it. Was there a further discussion of this deletion that I missed? Or did you simply boldly delete it based on the merits (or lack thereof)? Just curious, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Subsequent to your denial of the speedy deletion of this article, I found this: http://www.usthospital.com.ph/aboutusth/usthhistory.php. This article takes that content word from word. It needs to be deleted under CSD G12. It is a blatant copyright violation of the hospital's website. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• The article has been here since 2007, and may in its current form be a copyright violation, but it is possible that the article has material from an earlier time that could be salvaged in a revision deletion and placed out to cover the subject. It is also possible (albeit highly unlikely) that the page the material is copied from copied our page instead. Under those circumstances it seemed better to let the copyright investigation unit look into the matter rather than outright delete the page only to discover later that some of it could have been salvaged. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• I moved discussion from my talk page here to keep the discussion together. The very first iteration [1] of the article contained a direct copy/paste dump from the institution's website, and that copyright violation has sustained ever since. One or more editors decided to copy/paste dump a number of pages from that university's website into articles here. I've been going through and tagging them for deletion. Quite a number have already been deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Response? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: The page has already been tagged as a copyright violation, and that ended the extent of my involvement with the page. It the copyright investigation people determine the article is lost cause then it will be deleted, otherwise it will be redacted and released back into the article space. I'm not really the best person to be discussing this with, as I've only got a limited knowledge of the processes and other such copyvio matters. If you'd like to take this up with someone more familiar with the process I can give you a name or suggest a board to post on, otherwise I'd be of the mind to sit back and let the process work. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• My intention is to re-tag the article as a db-g12 violation, as copyrighted content has existed in every iteration of the article since it's creation. The substance of the article has not changed since its creation. Some section headers have changed, and one paragraph of copyright violating content was removed. No actual content other than an unsourced "It is also known as Cardinal Santos medical center." has been added [2]. The entire history of the article as it stands contains copyright violations. There is no earlier version that does not contain a blatant copy/paste dump from the hospital's website. This is a blatant, clear, unequivocal case of copyright violation. Thus, unless you object I'm going to re-tag this article for deletion. I may recreate it based solely on the infobox, gallery, and categorical information if it is notable (I have yet to check that). --Hammersoft (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Wait until July 25 to retag as g-12. That way you can say in good faith that no action has been taken to address the problem with the week given by the copyvio template, thereby avoiding any allegations of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Huh? Deleting a blatant copy/paste dump copyright violation is considered disrupting Wikipedia now? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Fine, I give up. Far be it for me to give Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) and her team a chance to rewrite a page that could stay. Retag it and wait for it to be deleted, since that is obviously the only thing you give a damn about here. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I fail to understand why you've chosen to turn this into a hostile engagement between us. I had thought we were having a collegial discussion, but I guess not. I do not appreciate being told that my intended actions would violate WP:POINT and that apparently the only thing I "give a damn about" is deleting things. I'm sorry to have offended you. I take copyright seriously here (not meaning to suggest you don't) and allowing it to sustain is wrong. That's my belief, and it is supported by policy. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: I owe you an apology. I worked yesterday (which always tests my patience and puts me in a foul mood), my dad found out that he is on the verge of losing another hospital contract, I had a argument with my brother, and with my patience taxed I came on here only to find your discussion which I misinterpreted and it ended up being the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak, however a man should always accept responsibility for his actions and the fact is I showed unnecessary aggression here. For that, you have my apologies. That I was having a bad day doesn't mean I had to drag you into it, and frankly that I did so reflects poorly on me. I offer no excuse for my behavior, and will try to find better outlets for my aggression in the future. Respectfully, TomStar81 (Talk) 22:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• There isn't a one of us who does not have a bad day from time to time. What is quite remarkable is someone on this project actually issuing an apology. That is practically unheard of! Major, major kudos to you and apology happily accepted. I hope things get better with you and your family. I've had time periods when things were pretty grim with my family. Something that buoyed me in such times; you are never so bad off that you can't look down. Have faith, keep your chin up. It will get better. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	you deleted my article but i forgive you Jbrulz123 (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	you cleared my article i forgive you. I spent an hour on that f%#@king article Jbrulz123 (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on sourcing articles about bombing a battleship Op-ed: TomStar81 on the role of nursing in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

hello! a few days ago you moved my article to my user space so i could work on it before officially putting it out there. I was wondering if you could look over what ive done and give me some feedback on what else I may need to get it published without it being deleted? ~kbb82794

Hello! hope you had a good weekend. I was just wondering if you ever got a chance to check out the page? ~kbb82794

Billboard Top 5 Producers of 2014. Also a song they did with Diplo/Iggy was the worlds first "Interactive Shoppable" music video and 1 Platinum and 2 Gold selling records for musical accomplishments. ~kbb82794 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbb82794 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Florence Nightingale. Coloured lithograph. Wellcome V0006579.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		On behalf of the editors of The Bugle, for your unbroken series of thought-provoking World War I-related op-eds (and your timelines) that began in July 2014. This month is therefore the first anniversary of the start of the series and, ipso facto, the first anniversary of the 100th anniversary of the start of the war. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I have closed your MFD nomination. Please read WP:MFD before trying anything like this again.

Policies, guidelines and process pages: "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi,I once created article or biography for Azerbijani painter Sakit Mammadov but it was deleted. https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakit_Məmmədov_(rəssam) It is his page in azerbaijani language.I want to create it again because he is gonna win award and wiki page is needed for this awar.He personally asked me to create page.Please help me.Best Regards,Rashad Aghayev,Azerbaijan,Baku. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resadagha (talk • contribs) 13:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This thumbnail| Winslow Homer - The Army of the Potomac--A Sharp-Shooter on Picket Duty could probably make it as a FP, if one only knew where to use it. It is a google file. I leave it to you, pity not to use such a good picture. Maybe you can find a use for it. Looks real good at close up. Hafspajen (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not ...only mine. Hafspajen (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, back in July, you deleted the page "Dylan Kardashian" Can you please have a look at these links as I believe they support the page and that it should be on Wikipedia.

• Facebook Verified Page
• IMDB
• Official Website
• Famous Birthdays
• Twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by KardashianSource (talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I just wanted to know what sort of citation would be sufficient for the MGS4 part of the Missouri article? I know you are against it but you also said if there is a valid citation it is OK to include it. I wondered what would count as a "valid" citation - is merely citing the game itself enough, or do I need a specific, say, youtube video of the scenes aboard the Missouri, or perhaps a gaming website that makes mention of the Missouri's role in the game?

I know you are kind of ideologically against its inclusion so I'm sorry to ask for help with something you're opposed to, but I am really looking for a source that meets your own standards (and those standards are welcome - my first, un-sourced edit, was insufficient and you were right to get rid of it until I found one to include there), so you seemed the right person to ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMPC (talk • contribs) 02:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@TheMPC: I remain against it, but consensus favors individual inclusions now. Just add the following after your MGS4 information, it'll suffice (for now, anyway): <ref>((cite video game |title=Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots |developer=Kojima Productions |platform=PlayStation 3 |level=5 ))</ref> (FYI: I played the game too, so I am well aware of the importance Missouri has to the cause :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright man, thanks for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMPC (talk • contribs) 02:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Second Schleswig War Interview: Featured picture participants Op-ed: TomStar81 on Indian nationalism during World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I saw you deleted the Point Valid article with the following edit summary: "A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Did you see my objection on the talkpage? Why did you decide to overrule it? Debresser (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: The band in question never had a platinum album, or played for international dignitaries, or won a Grammy/Oscar/Emmy/Tony, or met any of the other criteria to demonstrate that they had a credible claim of significance by Wikipedia standards. In the absence of any material to support a claim that the band was significant in any Wikipedia-acceptable way, shape, or form, the article on the group was deleted without prejudice. It is a hard pill to swallow, believe me I know, but from where I sit the band without a credible claim of significance was simply here on Wikipedia too soon to survive. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here, however I cannot hold my tongue :-) It appears that many editors, including admins, do not understand the difference between A7 and Notability. Just my $.02Ottawahitech (talk)

@Ottawahitech: I learned the hard way. That having been said, learning is a never ending dialogue between men and material, so its simple to learn but impossible to master :) TomStar81 (Talk) 17:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I still feel I should contest your decision. This band is both significant and notable, as testified to by the 14 (!) sources, the fact that for years nobody has seen a problem with this article, and the cooperation with another notable person, Catherine Asaro. I would like to ask you to reconsider. If you feel in doubt, please consider restoring the article and nominating it for Afd, and let's see what the community will decide. Debresser (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I realize that the deletion nomination lacked the necessary context, but Washington and Old Dominion Railway was already within the scope of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Oanabay04. Once you roll back the copyright violations, the base text was a copy/paste split from Washington and Old Dominion Railroad and should just be redirected, but because of a low-level edit war between two editors the two articles existed uneasily in parallel, duplicating each other. This is why I decided that the best resolution was simply deleting the history; there wasn't actually anything there which needed to be salvaged. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello TomStar81, I just received a message on my email ID, but when I click it to view the message, I can't see anything. At first I got a message saying "Unknown probably deleted page" was patrolled by TomStar81, follow by TomStar81 has left you a message - '/* Nomination of I-exceed for deletion */ add, format, ping'. Is that the message? I'm sorry, but I don't understand what that means. I went through your guidelines for deletion. I do agree that initially, I misunderstood the guidelines with respect to notability that we should not create new content but give references to what has already been said as it has been said by citing resources. Since then, I revised the article. I also did have an issue when the article did have a marketing flavour to which I toned down the tone of the article. Must I reference the article within the page instead of merely listing references? There were a few comments by user SpacemanSpif earlier which I did not understand and I had asked for clarification. But they were deleted.

I'm sorry if I sound like a noob. But I'm unable to understand what needs to be addressed. I feel I've addressed a lot of the comments and concerns raised, but quite obviously, it seems that I haven't addressed them enough. Please help. Ffrewin (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I've recreated the article and its been tagged under the speedy deletion section. I have toned down the article as mentioned previously by Wiki moderators. Ffrewin (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

As per your reply to rebuild the article, is there a seperate section where the draft must be created so that the community can provide suggestions and input on how to build the article so that it can remain here on site?Ffrewin (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Tom, I have created the article in the draft section. Could you provide some suggestions and inputs on how to avoid getting deleted? Ffrewin (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tom, made a minor edit to the article in the draft section. Have you had a chance to look at it yet? Ffrewin (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hello TomStar81, you removed a CSD tag here and cited quote "declining csd, page was csd-deleted previously, therefore G-11 does not apply. Pick another csd-criteria, or go to WP:AFD if you want the page deleted" unquote. This page was not tagged for G11 but instead I had tagged it for "db-reason" and hence I am not clear about your action. Can you please look into this? Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@AKS.9955: The given deletion criteria as read in the article space was, and I quote, "Recreated previously deleted page on 11 Mar 15". From a csd perspective then this is essentially a G4 request (misconstrued by me as G11, that was legitimately an error on my part, I apologize) as G4 is for "...a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." The problem with that criteria though is that recreation of deleted material without an afd to back it up is not eligible for deletion on recreation grounds. That having been said, there is no reason that the article could not be retagged for csd under other criteria (notability, hoax, etc) or taken to afd for a community deletion attempt. Keep in mind this is my take on the matter, and I am only human so I do make mistakes (some of them 1st class doozies), so if you'd like a second opinion your more then welcome to ask around - I have no objections if you do. Alternatively, if I missed something that you think warrants a second look lemme know and I will reevaluate. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello TomStar81, the page i created is being protected due to copyright issue, and it remains in the same status for a long time. i have tried to make amends and make it better to avoid copyright issues. would you please help me or give me some tips. sorry for the inconvenience caused, andi am very new to this place. thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momento2 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

ok, you got me. I am totally full of shit. I apologize, but thank you for letting me. Have my 3 minutes mins of fun.

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:1960-07-21 First Polaris Firing By Submerged U-Boat.ogv, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors, coordinator elections have begun Articles: Abbasids to a Yugoslav monitor Book reviews: Economics of warfare, Japan, and light horse Op-ed: We can (not) advance Timeline: This month in World War I

What a terrible nomination for a7! Please don't do it again. What's worse, you put that tag back after it was removed by a reviewer. Why? -- Y not? 13:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar. I appreciate it. Adamdaley (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

In recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History Project for the next year, I hereby present you with these co-ord stars. I wish you luck in the coming year. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the Wikistripe for your contribution of 2 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period July to September 2015. Well done! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

Hi, TomStar81! I see you've full-protected Yuki Ip, and I see why. I'm ready to deal with the copyright problem there now (it's the last page outstanding in that day, and I'd like to be shot of it). Would you like to unprotect it so that I can do that, or would you rather I use edit requests? She is notable, so the page should be kept. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 999th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

---

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TomStar81/Archive_17.