User talk:Renamed user 35h9b24b933rhb

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

• Hello hello @TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername: - pretty funny, fun Wiki Username!! Are you based in San Diego CA USA Earth still? Look forward to meeting you at future meet-up / meeting / events that James and DrMel put on. Peace!

• Hey, PS, on your UserPage you have text mentioning the "Random Article" feature of Wikipedia - why not make that a regular hyperlink like this, pointing to Random Article? :-D

For future reference, normally, the only person you're strictly required to notify that you're nominating a page for deletion is its original creator. It's not strictly wrong to notify other contributors as well, but there's not always much point in doing that across the board — sometimes you'll hit people like me who really only tagged the page for maintenance and never had anything to do with its actual content, and sometimes pages have had so many past contributors that you'd be doing nothing but notifying people for hours and hours. So it's better to be strategic: besides the page creator, you might want to consider notifying people who have obviously contributed to the article a lot (e.g. somebody who's edited the article 20 times), but you don't have an obligation to comprehensively notify every single editor in the page history. Hope that helps a bit.

Love your username, by the way. Very, very true!

and, just for your future guidance, If you think there might be objection to a deletion, just notifying people, though necessary, has a limited effect, because the current practice with speedy deletions is that almost all of them are deleted within at most a few hours. The safer course in such situations is to use PROD. This was not necessary here--the original contributor had an obvious coi, the further changes were inconsequential, and there was indeed no real case for keeping the article--but keep it in mind, because PROD is not used as much as it should be.

Keep up the good work.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks,

• Admittedly, I have next-to-no experience with CSD (I've only ever once invoked it, and that was for a blatant advertisement), but based on a quick look through the CSD Redirect possibilities, I don't see anything that would immediately allow for the page to be deleted. You could proceed with a RfD if you wanted, but I think it might be better to attempt to simply work out an agreement first.
  Personally, I believe that as long as CNN doesn't appeal the eventual verdict, and Nunes doesn't sue CNN again in the future, then there's no real harm in keeping the redirect. There is a non-zero chance that a reader might search for "CNN v. Nunes"--especially considering how the current article has received 260 views within its first 12 hours of existence--and in that case I feel it would be better to redirect them to the article they were almost certainly looking for than to send them to a list of possible articles. (Of course, if there is an appeal or a similar lawsuit, we can always revisit this.)
  I also noticed that other articles do something similar--Wade v. Roe, for instance, redirects to the correct case name Roe v. Wade--but I also see that there is no policy dictating that this must be the case. In any case, I'd be interested in hearing your view on the topic. (And on one level, if you really want to delete the redirect, feel free to just delete the redirect; this is a mere 72 bytes we're discussing, so this isn't worth getting into a massive debate about. I would just like to have a conversation first, that's all.)
  
  (The reference I made to page moves being excluded, by the way, was actually mentioned on the "Contest this Speedy Deletion" box, as well as on the CSD listing itself. The latter describes this rule as existing "because of a history of improper deletions of these redirects. A move creates a redirect to ensure that any external links that point to Wikipedia remain valid; should such links exist, deleting these redirects will break them.")
  (Also, sorry for the long wall of text--it looked a lot shorter in my notepad document.)

I just felt it was a non-controversial bit of cleanup after moving the article to the correct title, with minimal chance of external inlinks (it being just hours old), and just the two internal links, one of which (the current events portal) I fixed, and the other of which did not need fixing. Like you said, NBD – just housekeeping, as I don't see the need for it, and it could attract incorrect usage in other articles if they write CNN v. Nunes and successfully link it instead of seeing the red link to tell them it's wrong.

My name is Damir Mikec, an Olympian shooter from Serbia! I always wanted to have all my medals standing somewhere online, so what is the best way than Wikipedia! So I took freedom to make my account "Zmajstrasni" and to edit my page and edit some of my missing medals from the biggest competitions in my sport, which I think they are important.

Thank you very much for your understanding and all the best!

When I last looked there was no guideline or policy saying that rcat shell must be used. Could you point me to what it is you basing your edit summary on?

The best source I was able to find that comments upon this topic is Template:Redirect category shell/Comparison, which states that {{redirect category shell}} has certain benefits over individual rcats (such as a less-steep learning curve and automatic protection detection), but that ultimately "[t]here is no policy nor guideline with a goal to get editors to use the Rcat shell. So it is up to editors to decide which style is better for use."

My comment in the edit summary wasn't actually referring to a policy though; it was actually referring to my assumption that there was a general community consensus to use {{rcat shell}} over individual rcats, as I had actually never seen a redirect use individual rcats without {{rcat shell}} before. Given that I have never seen any official documentation of this consensus, though, I could very well be wrong. I apologize if the edit summary was slightly ambiguous.

Nothing much has changed then since I last looked into this. For the record there are some editors that are strongly against the rcat shell template, me among them. I think it is unnecessary cruft that adds no value but does add an additional layer of abstraction. There's unfortunately an extremely zealous set of editors over it. I suspect in part because it's an easy way to up one's edit count and some people think that way. It used to be that people would avoid adding the shell on just one redirect template though.