Talk:Navarre, Florida

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Navarre, Florida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071030130941/http://www.santarosa.fl.gov/zoning/ntcp/ntcpfinalapprovedplan/introduction.pdf to http://www.santarosa.fl.gov/zoning/ntcp/ntcpfinalapprovedplan/introduction.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060410175017/http://www.navarrefl.com:80/location1.html to http://www.navarrefl.com/location1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ...the story about Col Wyman and his French bride is a little less chamber-of-commerce friendly; he apparently divorced her, and fatally shot her soon thereafter when she was tending a pet's grave at her old house.  Anmccaff (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: -There were no official records or citations found that confirmed this, so it was struck from the article as a whole--Navarre0107 (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Touchy-feely history, part two.... 

message: * As an exploratory measure, what would y'all's opinions be if the Navarre Beach were merged into the mainland Navarre page? Remember to write according to Wikipedia:Merging--Navarre0107 (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal (Navarre Beach)

message: The discussions about the protests don't appear to be appropriate for the History section. They would seem to be more relevant under a Law and Government section, with a paragraph on Politics. Also, the "protests" about the Navarre sign and the HNWS were mostly objections discussed on social media. There were never any physical protest activities in the community. Florida's Most Relaxing Place would never get so upset about topics like those. :)
 --SkyJumper1 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended Changes to History Section 

message: I believe that it would be best suited for the Holley, Florida page to merge into this page. Holley is part of Navarre's Census Designated Area (edit: it appears as though I misquoted the Census term, Holley is part of Navarre's Census County Division, not Census Designated Area), Holley is part of Navarre's County Commission district, and for all intents and purposes, as it already says on the Holley, Florida page, Holley is largely seen as simply a part of Navarre already. --Navarre0107 (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: -- My apologies, it appears as though I mixed up my census terms, looking at it, it appears as though the term is Census County Division, not Census Designated Area, but the idea is still the same, here's the definitive 2010 U.S. Census Report for Florida, on PDF page 64 (report page 30), under Santa Rosa County, it breaks down Navarre and Holley as the "Holley-Navarre CCD," an abbreviation for the Holley-Navarre Census County Division. However, even disregarding this, as Census borders have little to no legal recognition, Holley is still locally seen as part of the larger community of Navarre -- Navarre0107 (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal (Holley, Florida) 

message: An editor reverted the deletion of non-notable persons from this article, here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navarre,_Florida&diff=1068191937&oldid=1068154766
Also here .. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navarre,_Florida&diff=1068192308&oldid=1068191937
Not only were the reverts/edits improper, the editor in addition failed to provide the required explanatory edit summary, making no effort to justify the revert. 
It also caught my attention that the user name of the person making these changes is that (with slight addition) of the name of the article itself. And that the editor insists on adding patently non-notable persons to the "notable persons" list. While we assume good faith, the possibility of a sense of the editor that she/he owns the article does admittedly come to mind. As well as possible conflict of interest.
I would ask the editor to either self-revert, or alternatively provide a proper rationale for their action and inaction. 
User:SounderBruce -- perhaps you have some thoughts on this, as I see you have looked closely at earlier forms of this article.
--2603:7000:2143:8500:9B8:B23B:7DDC:518E (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts