User talk:Renamed user dfghtjd64

Archives

1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8:

I propose to make Otaihunga railway station a redirect to Otaihanga railway station and have put it on the WikiProject NZR list of tasks. Current spelling and also the spelling in WMR advertisements and in Douglas Hoy’s 1972 book on the WMR (p52,120). I do not have access to Ken Cassell’s "Uncommon Carrier" at present. Hugo999 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suffolk Together is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suffolk Together until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. doktorb _words^deeds 08:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Simonds of Botesdale is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simonds of Botesdale (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SK2242 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Markethillsudbury.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fet481bus.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are a returning WP:VANISHed editor. If that's the case, please advise note that the vanishing will need to be reversed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: pinging as an FYI as you performed the original vanishing of the account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: see below. This account has been indef blocked, as editing with this username is not appropriate. Any admin should feel free to lift this block if the account is renamed. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I'm not sure I understand. This account has over 10,000 edits - it needs to be unvanished, not renamed. You vanished the account on in March 2017.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: they certainly need to not be editing using a "Renamed user..." username. "Unvanishing" is really just renaming - so it could go back to the old name, but really it could go to any name as we would normally allow a global rename for most anyone in good standing. The way I see it, out local vanish guidelines about forcing in the old username are about if the person behind the "renamed user" account makes a new account and resumes editing instead of just going away forever - as there is not a new account right now I don't see that triggered yet. I'm not going to force this rename on this account right now, but won't put up a fight if another global renamer wants to after reading this message. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've seen a return handled this way before; in the cases I've seen the vanishing has been fully reversed if they editor returned (unless there were specific privacy concerns with the restoration of the original account name). By soft blocking the account, they can just create a new account and carry on, which is not intended by the local vanishing policy. I think there was a similar situation discussed on functionaries-l not long ago, perhaps TonyBallioni remembers? Vanishing is supposed to be a big deal, and if we soften the requirements regarding triggering one and reversing upon return, then I think it can easily be abused.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing is not a "policy". Feel free to refer to the functionaries or global renamers lists, I won't argue against what some other global renamer would like to do, but I'm not going to force the rename myself. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: OK, I also looked in to this a tiny bit more, I did not rename this account, see meta:Special:Redirect/logid/19903641. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do support that edits should not be getting published from a "Renamed user..." account though, thus the indef block. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because your username, Renamed user dfghtjd64, does not meet our username policy. Your username is the principal reason for the block. You are welcome to continue editing after you have selected a new username that meets the username policy guidelines, which are summarized below.

Per the username policy, a username should represent an individual and should not: represent a group or organization; be promotional; be misleading (such as indicating possession of special user rights or being a "Bot" account (unless approved for such purposes)); be offensive or otherwise disruptive. However, a username that contains the name of a organization and also identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87" is allowed, though, among others, the guidance on conflict of interest and the policy of paid-contribution disclosure are relevant.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our username policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you wish for your existing contributions to carry over under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" from their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a change of name request.
3. Your requested new username cannot already be in use. Therefore, please check the list here to see if a name is taken prior to requesting a change of name.

Appeals: If, after reading the guide to appealing blocks you believe you were blocked in error, then you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject East Anglia/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rangiahua railway station is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangiahua railway station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]