User talk:Eldizzino

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Barrios and Communes of Buenos Aires a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was NOT a cut and past move. It was an ARTICLE SPLIT. Eldizzino (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cut and paste move, is when you take the contents of one page, place it on another page, then blank/redirect the original article to the new page(s). This is what you did. You moved the contents to two different pages (existing redirects), then removed all of the information from the original page. That is the very definition of a cut/paste move.

The correct way to do this (IF there is consensus - and not just you thinking you should do it now that it's got to this point.) is that the communes section should be moved out of the article, and the existing page moved to the new title (Barrio or neighbourhood).

As I said though, now it's got to this point, you need to explain WHY it should be split, with relevent 'arguments', not just because it should be or because that's the way the spanish wikipedia has it - Happysailor ^(Talk) 20:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was an article SPLIT. The old bad article could not and cannot be moved to TWO targets. It is not "Barrio or neighbourhood", it is Neighbourhoods of Buenos Aires and Communes of Buenos Aires. Eldizzino (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the way that you were splitting it wasn't correct, also you need a consensus to do the split. Since I'm pretty sure you were trying to be helpful, I'm going to try and setup the article split discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If something in the splitting was not correct, then Happysailor could have said so. But they didn't. And if I would be aware of what was not correct I could have either fixed it, or someone else could have fixed it. After all this is a WIKI that allows collaboration. BUT: Thank you for now helping with the CONTENT discussion. Eldizzino (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems is you shouldn't be splitting articles without a consensus to do so. I've proposed a split, and opened up discussion about it at Talk:Barrios and Communes of Buenos Aires#Split Proposal- if there is a consensus to perform the split, then it would involve some complicated moving for attribution purposes. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Barrios of Buenos Aires has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Barrios of Buenos Aires was changed by Eldizzino (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.978834 on 2015-05-28T19:32:37+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Barrios of Buenos Aires with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Barrios of Buenos Aires with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Neighbourhoods of Buenos Aires with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Barrios of Buenos Aires. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Barrios and Communes of Buenos Aires. You don't have a consensus to do this. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Barrios and Communes of Buenos Aires. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked you for an hour, just to give you a chance to cool off and consider the advice that you have been given, before you end up earning a much longer block. bd2412 T 20:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are corrupt. You abused your admins rights. I did split the bad article. I described it in the talk page. The other editors reverted, claiming "vandalism", full a bad faith. Claiming edit warring, where they did edit war - they did not discuss anything, while I use the talk page. And you on the talk wrote, there is no need for disambiguation - and when I wanted to remove Template:disambiguation you already blocked me. Eldizzino (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing the issue does not mean repeatedly reverting other editors while adding a talk page justification for your actions. It means letting the status quo be while persuading others of the merits of your position. bd2412 T 20:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The others were no way interested in the content. The just reverted shouting "Vandalism" and alike. Eldizzino (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, if you continue reverting when unblocked, you'll just get blocked for longer. Try formulating a sensible argument instead- for instance, looking at how reliable sources deal with it. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the corrupt cult here. You can revert without having demonstrated interest in the topic, and you don't get blocked. But I get blocked. Eldizzino (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Eldizzino reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: ). Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did split the bad article. I described it in the talk page. You blindly reverted, claiming edit warring, where YOU did edit war - you did not discuss anything, while I use the talk page.

You could first place report yourself. Eldizzino (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because cut-and-paste moves are a violation of Wikipedia copyright, and so are exempt. Go to talkpage, get a consensus, then move it properly. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is not other way to SPLIT an article, than COPY and PASTE. Go, and report yourself. Eldizzino (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm just about to set up a discussion the proper way, so no, I'm not going to report myself. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Colchagua Valley (wine region), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://gavinhubble-wineblogs.blogspot.com/2013/10/colchagua-valley-wine-region-chile.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Colchagua Valley (wine region) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://gavinhubble-wineblogs.blogspot.com/2013/10/colchagua-valley-wine-region-chile.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 06:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Última Esperanza Department has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be a hoax. This article contains no sources and there are no hits for "Última Esperanza Department" in Google Books or Google News.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neelix (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have expanded the article with content based on one of my articles (not Wikipedia articles) :-P I will, however, move back Cardenal Caro Province article to Cardenal Caro, it had been like that for years. --Diego Grez (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Richard Kountz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the paper's Javad Ramezani He established the Iranian and American readers.--5.232.39.249 (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Eldizzino! Thank you for your contributions. I am SmokeyJoe and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Institute of Pharmacology of the Polish Academy of Sciences has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 States of Mexico page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Eldizzino (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Ixtenco page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Nacajuca page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Pinal de Amoles page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what all changes you have been making, but my inbox has been flooded with messages. I truly appreciate any help on my hacienda and Municipalities of Yucatán project. I did 20 of the municipalities this month and plan to do another set of 20 next month and did 10 of the haciendas from the talk page on Haciendas of Yucatán. I'm shooting for another 10 of those as well. As you can tell, I sort of use the same "format" on all of them. Can you give me a brief explanation of the changes you made so that I can update my blank form and save us both a lot of work? It's a massive project and to keep myself from burn out, I'm trying to stick with 30 on it per month leaving myself time for other articles. SusunW (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW: I like what you do! I changed:

• links to "Yucatán" to "Yucatán (state)" - there are a lot of false links around, sometimes from items before the state existed, so if one means the state and not the peninsula or the region, then the most clear is to link to "Yucatán (state)"
• any "Municipality of X" to "X Municipality" - for to have a consistent representation, facilitating reading and understanding.

I think that's it. Do you have the blank form somewhere online? Maybe I forgot something. Additionally:

• There are Mérida Municipality in other countries, unambiguous link would be Mérida Municipality, Yucatán. Eldizzino (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And you are correct, they should point to the state and not the peninsula. I didn't set up the Municipalities page originally, so I am working my way through the red links. Initially I discovered that part of them were set up as Municipalitiy of X and the other X Municipality, so that caused one whole group of issues. It seems to be always something. I find the Spanish site confusing, as it makes no distinction between the private property of the owner and the village. Most people here (in Mérida) recognize that the village was part of the hacienda and sometimes the village is referred to as the "ex-hacienda" but since the houses themselves are tourist attractions and the villages generally are not, I have taken the position that the Hacienda refers only to what was left to the owner when the ejido was formed. The hacienda may be within a village, but the village is not part of the owner's private property. Thus Hacienda X refers to the house and the village name is what it is, i.e. Hacienda Cacao is the house, Cacao is the village the house is in, if that makes sense. Here is my blank: User:SusunW/Sandbox 3. On the municipalities, I just go to the last one I created and type over it. SusunW (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Institute of Pharmacology of the Polish Academy of Sciences 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/Institute of Pharmacology of the Polish Academy of Sciences until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not a proper name, so I think you should move it back.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done even if no reasoning was provided for why it is not. Follow up at Talk:Tarascan state#Tarascan State. Eldizzino (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on articles relating to the Spanish/Mexican Californias. There are many still in need of attention. Before changing established, consistent naming conventions, however, I ask that you consider the following: while there existed political entities that were provinces/territories/departments at various times, the English names "Alta California Province" and Baja California Province" do not exist as proper names in published sources. Your insistence on using these names is therefore original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. Please stop changing the wording that has been worked out over many years. WCCasey (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:WCCasey: You insisted on "Mexico automatically included the provinces of Alta California and Baja California as territories" with the latter link going to an entity that only existed much later. I made that clear in the edit summary [1] but you re-inserted a nonsense link. If you prefer nonsense about a minor style issue - it is a style issue, then you are doing the readers a big disservice that unexpectedly end up on the state page. Eldizzino (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia 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.

Catemaco Municipality

added a link pointing to La Victoria

Comarca Lagunera

added a link pointing to Francisco I. Madero Municipality

Norberto Rivera Carrera

added a link pointing to La Purísima

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Eldizzino (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Language isolate 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:

• | Spoken by the [Purépecha people]] in [[Mexico]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Eldizzino (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be aware of how the process works. You made a controversial edit, it was reverted. You do NOT continue to move the articles name. If you wish to have the article moved, you should use the WP:RM process. I advise you to move the article back immediately, before I file an edit warring report.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• moved back ( Done) Eldizzino (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I see that you have moved Bilfinger to Bilfinger SE. Please note that we do not use 'SE', 'inc', 'plc' etc on wikipedia (please see WP:NCCORP). In any case page moves should not take place without discussion. Thanks for your understanding. Dormskirk (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dormskirk: please see WP:NCCORP and discuss at Talk:Bilfinger SE if you need help. Eldizzino (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for the article to be moved back. No disambiguation is required for subsidiaries or joint ventures: these have different names to the parent and can in any case be covered in the article itself. Dormskirk (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Bilfinger Construction requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the move of {{List of ISO 15924 script codes and related Unicode data}} you did today. While the pagetitle itself might be better (in an earlier move), the code should stay in template namespace. As it happens, edits following ISO 15924 changes are becoming an unnecessary horror this way. Also, the existing transclusion now is from article into article-DePiep (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Julius Berger Tiefbau AG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Wgolf (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tagalog move request to restore the old location, if you're interested. — kwami (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Yucatán requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Here: Talk:Church_of_the_Firstborn_of_the_Fulness_of_Times#Merger_proposal.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]