User talk:Lavalizard101

Talk page archive break down

Archive 1: From Account Creation to TPA Revoke

Archive 2: Unban request post to end-2023

Archive 3: 2024-Present

Pötschenkalk and Black River Formation

Hi @Lavalizard101: I see you have created two articles are essentially duplicating information found in more detailed that the redirect is pointing to? What is the purpose of it? scope_creep^Talk 10:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability#Stratigraphic units articles at the formation level are preferred. As for Pötschenkalk that was redirected to Pötschenkalk Formation an alternate name for the formation which I reversed back as Pötschenkalk (without Formation) is more common in the literature. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Also I didn't create those articles, just reverted undiscussed merges and moves. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed that first article as part of the WP:NPP article review process. The fact you didn't create these articles is neither here nor there. That note you've detailed above is not policy nor is it even a guideline. It has no weight. Putting back these article there are duplicating content elsewhere is a really poor choice for article creation and is really unacceptable as none of them are effctively sourced. I suspect that today that your going to end up at the edit warring noticeboard. I suspect it is also disruptive editing to revert on all when they have already been reviewed. I need to revert them. scope_creep^Talk 12:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You don't "need" to revert them. The articles prior to redirecting had been stable for years, before they were hypocritically redirected by Zigismon who claimed that group rank was best despite creating a draft for a formation of the same caliber (Draft:Skaneateles Formation and if wnyone is edit warring it is you who months after I reverted an undiscussed merge decided to unilaterally redirect an article. As for duplicating content, the same argument could and has unsuccessfully been made for taxonomy articles. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cambrian Mississippi

A tag has been placed on Category:Cambrian Mississippi indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 13:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Ani

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. scope_creep^Talk 17:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I've turned it over to admin. They will deal with it. I done. scope_creep^Talk 17:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)