Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:08, 14 July 2014

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Tallahassee population

As noted in my post - which some brilliant soul has already archived so nobody will ever see it again - I did go look at the Census Bureau site in an effort to clear up the discrepancy. Thanks for pointing me to the original census files - but they are huge, and it's really not worth my time to wade through all that. Appreciate your kind intention, though. Textorus (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georgia State Route 135, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Douglas Municipal Airport (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) 08:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Bannered US 1 Routes in Georgia

The purpose of the bannered routes articles is to have them all at one location. To break them out by state again defeats the whole purpose of the article. If the data is good, then simply port the data onto the bannered routes article and not at the state. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. They're still all listed there, just no longer redundantly. --NE2 01:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I mean that the bannered routes would be listed on the "bannered routes" page and not on the state page that you have moved them back too. Originally, before the advent of "bannered routes" they were scattered in various state pages and it was decided to redirected them all at one location if there were a lot of them... US 1 being one of those. Basically, I'm asking you to please move them back to the bannered routes page. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't move them to the state page; they were already there. I merely moved the one-sentence histories. --NE2 02:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Georgia State Route 520, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darton College (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) 10:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orville E. Babcock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crystal Lake, Florida (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) 08:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

New articles

Not sure if you're interested, but I created Boca Ciega Bay and Clam Bayou. Would be happy to have your expertise and assistance in fixing them up. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

History of Brevard County, Florida

Do you know what happened to the content of the article which used to be at namespace:

History of Brevard County, Florida ?

It seems to me that A) there was content there that was not present in the Brevard County article, and B) the proper way to handle this situation would have been to create a more summarized section in the Brevard County article, and have a link to a comprehensive article on the "History of Brevard County, Florida".

There doesn't seem to be any history of the former content when one clicks on history. Could that content even be restored if it was determined that that is what should be done? I happen to be working on content in this area, and there is a category that goes along with this content. It seems to me that an article should exist, consistent with all the other cities and counties which are handled that way. Greg Bard (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. For some reason, I wasn't seeing it when I clicked on history. I found it and reverted it. Perhaps we should summarize better in the main article on Brevard, but there is sufficient content for it, and the content, due to its nature, merits its own comprehensive article. Greg Bard (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And reverted back. As it is, there are two articles with essentially the same text. --NE2 19:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The proper way to deal with this, is to summarize the comprehensive article in sections in the Brevard County article, as I have stated. This is the way it is handled everywhere else. Are we going to have a problem here? Greg Bard (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No, we won't have a problem if the article is summarized properly. --NE2 20:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

C.A. "Bill" Benedict Bridge

Zoom in on this sign to your right. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it's a random meaningless ceremonial name. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a common name for the new bridge.

Here's some stuff about him: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1987-01-29/news/0100340224_1_benedict-ben-watts-district-5 http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1993-03-28/news/9303250606_1_bill-benedict-bridge-johns-river http://www.zoominfo.com/p/C.A.-Benedict/256820266 --NE2 19:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Hey, have you ever been to the old bridge? User:Ebyabe took some in 2010, and it looked like it was in better condition when he took it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was there in about 2000. I probably have photos lying around somewhere. --NE2 20:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Route 76 in Georgia

Why are you purposefully adding gaps in the route when it was all listed? --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add a gap, but directed readers to the SR 515 article to avoid a long redundancy and associated problems with different information in either one. --NE2 18:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I swore I detailed US 76 through Georgia before the jct list was moved to its own page. It didn't have a gap then; if the problem is different information, then simply cut-paste the one that is correct. It's better to lay it all out there without the user having jump to another article for just a section of road. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you planning to watch both articles and copy changes from one to the other every time someone changes only one? Can you guarantee that you won't stop at some point? --NE2 19:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You are talking about a junction list, which for all intents and purposes shouldn't change much once in place. If something major changes, I am sure I or someone else will update the articles as needed. But there is no guarantee, which is true for all stand-alone road articles needing updates but haven't yet for various reasons. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it change? There are old alignments that could be added, perhaps other major non-state routes... U.S. Route 9 in New Jersey, a so-called "good article", does not include the junctions on the US 1 overlap. --NE2 20:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course change is a constant, but they don't change overnight. The next change on US 76 could be months away or years away. Comparing how other articles do it doesn't justify the laziness of it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not lazy to take into account long-term quality of the article. What's lazy is putting the same thing in three different articles and expecting others to keep them consistent (which they already weren't - SR 515 had a SR 5 Alt. that hasn't existed for quite some time, while neither SR 5 nor US 76 had it). --NE2 21:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine, have it your way. I just hate all that effort deleted for sake of not wanting to maintain it and force the reader jump articles to simply follow one route. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The thing is it's more effort to maintain it. --NE2 22:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Route 378, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SC 2 (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) 08:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Big Shoals State Park v. Big Shoals State Forest

Thanks for catching my mistake! This was another one that seemed to go by a different name than XYZ State Forest. I looked at the source you gave me with the state forest listings here and it lists Big Shoals Public Lands. Can you help me sort out what's what and make sure I don't make another bad mess up? Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It also seems to me there should be an article on Florida State forests more generally? How many there are, who manages them, funding, etc. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

See page 7 of the PDF:

Fee simple title interest in these public lands is divided between the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) and the SRWMD. Management of the property is subdivided among three agencies: the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry (DOF), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks (Division), and the SRWMD. The DOF holds the Board lease on the northern 1,673 acres of the Hamilton County property known as Big Shoals State Forest. The Division holds the Board lease for the southwest (1,012 acres) portion ofthe property within Hamilton County and for a smaller parcel (288 acres) located on the opposite side of the Suwannee River in Columbia County. The SRWMD owns the southeast 983 acres of the Hamilton County portion of the property and leases the northern half of this area to the Division. The lands under lease to the Division comprise Big Shoals State Park. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) regulate recreational hunting on the roughly 2,140-acre Big Shoals Wildlife Management Area (WMA), which includes the DOF property and a portion of SRWMD land. The Agency Boundaries Map delineates these jurisdictional boundaries.

It appears that the BSPL includes the non-overlapping BSSP and BSSF, with the BSWMA covering most of the BSSF, a small part of the BSSP, and the rest of the BSPL that's in neither. There's also a Big Shoals Conservation Area to the northeast (see map p. 68), which also seems to be owned by the SRWMD. --NE2 19:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to take a stab at it when I'm a little fresher. Thanks so much for your help!!! Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

South Walton

I think I redirected this to Fort Walton Beach, but I see it noted various places. Is it it's own community? I'm kind of surprised there is no article on it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's just the part of Walton County south of the Choctawhatchee/Intracoastal: http://www.visitflorida.com/en-us/cities/south-walton.html http://www.visitsouthwalton.com/ FWB is in Okaloosa County, so it's not in South Walton. Emerald Coast might be the best target for now. --NE2 00:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Tennessee State Route 461

Do you Believe everything you see on Google Maps??? I don't. So the message on the route's talk page, is also disputed in my opinion because I think someone but the wrong Route number on the Map. --ACase0000 (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

what --NE2 04:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You posted that it used to be apart of State Route 49 and that is what is What I was talking about above. Sorry if I confused you. --ACase0000 (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I posted something else too. --NE2 06:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Two I-494 proposals in Illinois

I'm commenting to you about this only because you created the I-494 redirect back in 2007. There seem to have been two I-494 proposals, the second along Lake Shore Drive about the same time as the first. I'm assuming that these files are legit enough regarding the second: text map (the map is linked from the text but the link on the archive version doesn't work; a later map exists but I can't find its context, only an old link on Kurumi's page). If agreed, could the redirect become a DAB page to the Crosstown and LSD articles, with the above info added to the History section of LSD's? Mapsax (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. --NE2 01:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

?? You don't sound too enthusiastic about it.... Mapsax (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Mississippi Highway 16 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to MS 1

Mississippi Highway 18 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Grand Gulf State Park

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Old Hillsborough County Courthouse may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Courthouse''' was constructed in 1892 in the block bounded by Madison Street, Lafayette Street (now ], Florida Avenue, and Franklin Street. This

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Module:Road data/strings/USA/IA

Module:Road data/strings/USA/IA was correct. There's only one blue link for any county road in all of Iowa: County Road 105 (Iowa), which redirects to Iowa Highway 105. The expected target of County Road 99 (Iowa), Iowa Highway 99 has not been created yet. In any case, the links don't include the county name because it's a statewide system. There are no other links to "turn blue" at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 07:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Read it and weep. --NE2 07:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln-Douglas

Ah, yes, I see. But this confusion is likely to come up again, so I just repointed them to Lincoln-Douglas debates, which has a list of the sites. WilyD 16:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

History undeletion for redirects at WP:REFUND

Hey, NE2.

I think I got all of your history undeletions, please let me know if I missed any. Also, it's not in the preloaded form but for histories behind redirects it would be a huge boon to link the dynamic "no redirect" link (see here) in the request so we don't end up wondering where the deleted content is (because we're looking at the history for the target!). LMK if I can get any others for you, if you just want to dump a slew of links on a talk page instead of using that pre-loader. Protonk (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I got all for now, though in a few months I may come across another batch. --NE2 20:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Protonk: Turns out I found another: County Road 615 (Indian River County, Florida) --NE2 21:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

IL 92

Regarding , where do you see CR TT? According to the 2011 IDOT map, it's CR 59. Plus, I've only ever seen one CR shield in Rock Island County, and it was up near the Whiteside County line on IL 84, which shows it as CR 57 now. –Fredddie™ 21:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

- it's also marked at the other end. I also see signs for CRs A to E going south off IL 92 in that area. (CR A is marked only at the south end, with a patch over something else.) --NE2 21:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Routing of the Great River Road, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages IL 9 and IL 17 (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) 08:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Cite CAstat

Template:Cite CAstat has been nominated for merging with Template:CalStats. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Missouri Route 76, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Table Rock State Park (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) 08:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

AWB

I understand your point, and will be more careful. Cheers. Faizan 06:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

State Roads

Hi Ne2,

Why did you revert my edit? It redirected those pages to the right article. Robert4565 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You replaced links to the correct topic with links to a different related topic. SR 14 Truck redirects to a section of SR 14 because there's info there. If the other truck routes get appropriate mentions, they too can be redirected. (What you did was not redirecting.) --NE2 21:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

NE2,

Thank you for making that correction. I'm sorry about that mistake. Robert4565 (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

West Virginia Route 2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bethany College, Marshall County Airport and Newport, OH

Illinois Route 127 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Horseshoe Lake (Illinois)

List of Inter-County Highways in Minnesota (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pelican Lake (Minnesota)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

U.S. Route 50 in Virginia

added links pointing to Fair Oaks, VA and Fair Oaks, Virginia

West Virginia Route 3

added links pointing to Union, WV and Union, West Virginia

Frostburg, Maryland

added a link pointing to Palace Theatre

Ice Mountain

added a link pointing to Wye

West Virginia Route 28

added a link pointing to Grant County Airport

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Article redirecting and splits

You may have noticed I have reversed some of your edits. The reason for the reversal of the redirects to US 321 is because its an article for the entire route, and when you redirect it by state, you are putting them in the middle of the article... where the user will then be forced to scroll up to read from the beginning. The article is not written as three articles in one, it is one article for all three states together. So please, don't try to departmentalize the article with redirects when it is not written that way.

As for the requested split for US 117, the hidden note was unneeded. The purpose of the banner is to begin discussion... thus you should start the conversation on it, otherwise I will delete the banner inactivity on your part. Keep in mind, if it is discussed and approved, then someone will have to create that article with meaningful information for it; right now there is just three sentences, so that is a lot to expand on to make this a worthwhile split. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This is standard practice for route in state redirects. Reverted.

As for US 117, best would be mentioning it in the history for US 158. Right now it's being put in a totally unrelated article. --NE2 00:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Write that in the discussion you just setup, not in the hidden notes for some other editor to find. Show me where it is standard practice to confuse readers to the middle of an article for them to scroll-up on? --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Almost every bloody redirect from in redirects to the section. --NE2 01:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Haven't you been told that "everybody does it" is not a viable answer as to why? I ask again, where is the rule you stating that exists? --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Might as well ask you where the rule saying don't do it is. The fact that section redirects work at all is a good enough counterexample. --NE2 02:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: we've both reverted thrice. So the 3RR applies now (as well as the rule against vandalism, which certainly applies to your removal of my comment if nothing else). --NE2 02:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

PPS: --NE2 02:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Basically, you could not find anything to prove your point, I get it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Except every other fucking redirect. Bugger off. --NE2 03:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The change of redirect on US 11 Truck doesn't bother me, though I question why you redirect US 19 Truck to it as well. Anywho, I don't know why you insist on writting hidden comments on US 117 when you created a discussion thread for the split, which is why I keep deleting it... you need to argue why you want the article to split and let others get in on the discussion. Just creating the split discussion with no discussion is a pointless thing to do and will likely be removed by a bot or someone else (I've been nice so far on that, I want you to start that discussion). Regarding the redirects, again when a user hits the article, they are not departmentalize but it is one complete article; it's like opening a book and starting at chapter 8. Just because you have seen this on some others doesn't make it right. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Where else did I make those comments? --NE2 03:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a hidden comment when you do this: "!--this has no relation to the current route, and would fit better as a section of the US 158 article-->" Nobody is going to read that unless they are editing the page and I kept replying in my comment reverts this fact. You have to open the discussion in the banner link you added to get the ball rolling; otherwise your split request will go nowhere. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You just said that I "created a discussion thread for the split". Anyway, I've done the split/merge, putting the info in U.S. Route 158#History where it makes more sense. --NE2 03:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, so much for discussing it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If you wanted to discuss it, you could have. --NE2 03:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't start a discussion page. You just put the banner up and left a hidden comment; I saw it only because that article is under my watch (like most highways in the Carolinas). You just now unilaterally moved it now. I wasn't totally against the move, but I wanted to know what others may say about it, just like we did with SR 159. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You could have started a discussion on the talk page. Instead you went on about the placement of my comment. --NE2 03:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't my place to start the conversation for you since I had no strong feelings about it; unlike SR 159, where I did take the lead on discussion for you. I was trying to get you to do it with my reverts and revert comments, then things started to spiral out of hand. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the U.S. Route 360 page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

NE2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was reverting vandalism in the form of removal of my comment. My obvious conclusion here is that continuing to revert is preferable to reporting.

Decline reason:

In no way does that appear to be vandalism. You are having a very minor content dispute with another long term good faith editor. The obvious conclusion should be to resolve discussions with those who have a good faith issue with your edits, instead of continuing to revert. I'm concerned that if unblocked, you would immediately resume your self-declared edit warring. Kuru (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

NE2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2="I'm concerned that if unblocked, you would immediately resume your self-declared edit warring." Take another look at ]. It's been resolved. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1="I'm concerned that if unblocked, you would immediately resume your self-declared edit warring." Take another look at ]. It's been resolved. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1="I'm concerned that if unblocked, you would immediately resume your self-declared edit warring." Take another look at ]. It's been resolved. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Not sure how you reached that conclusion, since it resulted in you getting blocked. 129.78.68.1 (talk) 06:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Reporting got me blocked. PS: who are you? --NE2 07:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Brickell Avenue

added a link pointing to Address

Ohio State Route 32

added a link pointing to Pike Lake State Park

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock