![]() Archives |
---|
Contents
- 1 Titchfield High School, Jamaica
- 2 Wadi "Fa'rah"
- 3 Unable to warn a user because username has a blacklisted name?
- 4 Nomination of John Smith (bishop) for deletion
- 5 Neelix redirects
- 6 Charles Bakaly III - vs - Animal House
- 7 User talk:Jerryjacob999
- 8 Party in the U.S.A.
- 9 Samuel Robinson
- 10 AFD
- 11 Thanks and Apologies
- 12 Thank you!
- 13 CÜR Music pages deleted?
- 14 A barnstar for you!
- 15 Palais Crystal
- 16 user:169.244.26.158
- 17 Rejected deletion of redirect of Montgomery C. Meigs
- 18 Biscayne Wall listed at Redirects for discussion
- 19 Please help
- 20 tithal
- 21 I2Pd page deletion
- 22 WP:CREATIVE
- 23 OwenJiang
- 24 Thanks
- 25 Stanton
- 26 A barnstar for you!
- 27 James Alltheway
- 28 Request help/advice about possible multiple-forum abuse in Connie Fournier article
- 29 Links to deleted articles
- 30 Kooga Rugby Page help
- 31 Sponsorships
- 32 Worldwide Partners
- 33 References
- 34 External links
- 35 Cielo24
- 36 Isaiah Richardson Jr. AfD
- 37 File:NovoGamer logo, 1 March 2016.png heads up
- 38 :-)
- 39 A quick FYI
- 40 Thank you
- 41 The Devil's Brigade
- 42 TearSolutions
- 43 Johnny Jet AfD closing
- 44 Villige Pump
- 45 ANI comment
- 46 undelete - Abhinav Paatekar
- 47 undeletion of Josef Shirdel
- 48 Please undelete Clarawood
- 49 Triumph of Love
- 50 Undeletion
- 51 Deletion review for Clarawood
- 52 Richard d'Anjolell
- 53 Toilet Partition
- 54 Suppressed edits to my user talk page
- 55 Procedural Query
- 56 IP editor "Claudia" actually banned a fourth time
- 57 Thank you for fixing things
- 58 hello
- 59 IP block
- 60 Schmitty
- 61 Viliumes
- 62 Some stroopwafels for you!
- 63 Rottweiler
- 64 Redirecting to blank page
- 65 Kept edit warring
Titchfield High School, Jamaica
The article's creator asked on the help page why it was deleted. I've found a government reference showing it exists,[1] (bottom of p. 10), so per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it should be undeleted (and retitled Titchfield High School). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Clarityfiend, it was a blank page, no content at all except for the speedy tag. Happy to restore the page, of course if content is going to be added to it: Titchfield High School, Jamaica. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Clarityfiend: I've started a one line stub with your reference. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I had no way of knowing it was blank, but there's a decent stub there now. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Wadi "Fa'rah"
Hi Malcolm. I consider Fa'rah, as opposite to Far'ah or Fa'ra, to be nothing more than a typo or misspelling, so I'm pretty convinced that it doesn't deserve a disamb. page. Or any kind of page for that matter. I applied for these and other spelling variations to be redirected to Wadi al-Far'a (river), if that comes through, this has to be fully removed altogether. I hope you agree. In Arabic you have this special sound, ayin, coming from the throat, which doesn't exist in European languages, so they write it as apostrophe-a ('a), that's what it's all about. There is no such thing as Fa'rah. Far'a, yes. Do you know how to remove a superfluous page? I don't yet and maybe you can do it when the redirects are approved. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Arminden:, I'm happy to defer to your knowledge and to follow your lead. :) Drop me a line when the redirects are sorted and we'll see about doing something with that page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Unable to warn a user because username has a blacklisted name?
Okay so I marked Jie-Shen Li as a attack page-but it wont warn the user for some odd reason has having a blacklisted name or something. Wgolf (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks-requested it to be salted as well as it keeps on getting recreated (possible SPI? I don't know!) Wgolf (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, good idea, @Wgolf:. I've blocked the user as a sockpuppet of the original creator of that attack page anyway - the duck test. I'm surprised that blacklisted names can be created! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks-requested it to be salted as well as it keeps on getting recreated (possible SPI? I don't know!) Wgolf (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of John Smith (bishop) for deletion
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160418082317im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Smith (bishop) 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/John Smith (bishop) 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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Neelix redirects
Would you please undo your speedy deletions of Unlawful possession of ammunitions and Illegal possession of ammunitions. Unlike most of the Neelix redirects, these were plausible misreadings of phrases like "Illegal possession of munitions", which is a recognized, contemporary criminal offense. (See, e.g., [2], [3], [4].) "Munitions" is a less common word than "ammunition", and the misuse is quite plausible. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, certainly. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Both done. I've removed the speedy templates as well. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Both done. I've removed the speedy templates as well. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Charles Bakaly III - vs - Animal House
I removed the redirect for Charles Bakaly III to Animal House a little while ago. You re-instated it.
Charles Bakaly III is a lawyer famous from the Monica Lewinsky era.
Animal House is a movie from the 1970's
There never should have been a re-direct, and the article should probably be deleted.
something to think about.
Roseohioresident (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Roseohioresident: Please don't blank pages, blank pages confuse the reader. Nominate the redirect for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion if you wish it to be removed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Roseohioresident: I have gone ahead and created a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Charles_Bakaly_III based on what you say. Feel free to add your voice. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Roseohioresident (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
User talk:Jerryjacob999
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 17:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, clearly a new editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Party in the U.S.A.
Can you semi-protect for persistent unsourced content? 123.136.107.14 (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've had a look. There's not a lot of activity since November, two edits in December, five in January. I wouldn't semi-protect on that basis but I'll put it on my watchlist and keep an eye on it in case it hots up. Cheers, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Samuel Robinson
I noticed today that Samuel Robinson (Actor) has been recreated by the same editor, after you closed the AfD as delete. I would flag this as a WP:G4, but seeking your opinion as to whether it would be better to just move it to draft space since Sam3346 seems insistent on recreating it. Cheers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
{{User:Ivanvector}} I would appreciate it if it was moved to draft space. I will gather more reliable references and recreate it the page in the future. Hello,
Contact me via my talk page.
- @Ivanvector:. I have no objection to the page being moved to draft space so that it can go through the creation process there. It should be approved by an uninvolved editor in the normal way before returning to the article space. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Also pinging @Sam3346:. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@Malcolmxl5: @Ivanvector: Understood. Thank you.
AFD
Hi Malcolmxl5, I was patrolling through the log and saw it redlinked so closed it without looking at the time - Some admins close them and some don't (or some simply forget too) so it was a pure coincidence that I closed minutes after you deleted it , Anyway Sorry about that, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, @Davey2010: Normally I close them first and then delete the page. I just so happen to do it the other way round this time. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well I guess it's nice to do something slightly different instead of the old way .... Well until someone comes along and interferes anyway
, –Davey2010Talk 02:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well I guess it's nice to do something slightly different instead of the old way .... Well until someone comes along and interferes anyway
Thanks and Apologies
Sorry for leaving the merge re: Monroe Institute unfinished by not redirecting the Talk. And thanks for indicating how that should be done. Prolumbo (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you!
I don't quite understand how I'm making that mistake. I did the same thing when I created the essay, WP:AVDUCK. I see where the urls are different:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Accuracy vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiProject_Accuracy. For future reference, if I want to create another project, would I enter:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_project_name? Was my mistake not adding Wikipedia: to the url? Atsme📞📧 02:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
One more question - can I create a shortcut redirect, like WP:Wikiproject Accuracy? And if so, where would I do that? Atsme📞📧 02:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Atsme: Yes, it's the 'Wikipedia:' bit that is missing. The title of the page would look something like Wikipedia:Wikiproject MyProject or Wikipedia:MyEssay. If you create a (red) link like that in a sandbox, you can then click on the link to create the page. Alternatively, if you create a draft page in your sandbox, you could move it into Wikipedia space using the page move function. The shortcut is just a redirect in Wikipedia space so, for example, you might create Wikipedia:MyProj with a redirect to Wikipedia:Wikiproject MyProject. You would then be able to use WP:MyProj as a shortcut as the wiki will recognise the WP: prefix as being the Wikipedia: prefix. Does that make sense? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
CÜR Music pages deleted?
I started pages for CÜR Music and its parent company CÜR Media last week and returned today to find you had deleted them. I am an employee of that company and believe what we are doing is indeed different, but would prefer not to go into specifics on a public forum. I'm happy to fill you in on something more private. If you'd like some context, which is not fully accurate but pretty close, you can read http://www.whathifi.com/news/cur-music-launches-us-rival-to-spotify-and-pandora. We had NO part in creating the article and it is not a full description of what we are doing.
I'd like to continue the process of creating pages for our brand, but want to make sure you won't take them down after a fair amount of work is put into them. Please advise on how to proceed and let me know directly if you have any questions.
Truthinwikiland (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Truthinwikiland
- Hello @Truthinwikiland: Yes, I deleted CÜR Music. The content of the page was 'www.curmusic.com Details to follow' and was speedily deleted as it did not indicate how the topic was of significance or importance. Another administrator routinely deleted CÜR Media as that was then a redirect to a page that had been deleted.
- The community has inclusion criteria for what might be included in the encyclopedia. These are summed up as: if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. 'Significant coverage' means that that the sources addresses the topic directly and in detail; 'reliable sources' mean reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; 'independent' means sources that have no vested interest in the written topic. You can find more information at:Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources; Wikipedia:Independent sources; Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). As you are an employee of the company, you should also review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest so you can take care to comply with the guidance when writing about your employer.
- You may find it useful to use the Articles for creation wizard to guide you through the creation process. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Just noticed that you hid the edit which the IP vandal/troll made on their talk page. Thank you, I appreciate that. :) Ches (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC) |
Palais Crystal
I was looking to try and delete this article as nothing links to it. If you want to go ahead and do that, you are more than welcome.Hogie75 11:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Hogie75: Blank pages confuse the reader hence we do not have them, rather we either fix them or delete them. I'm afraid there is no speedy deletion criterion for orphaned redirects so if deletion is wanted it would have to be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
user:169.244.26.158
I am going to recommend that you change the block setting for user:169.244.26.158 so he cannot create accounts during his block. CLCStudent (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Noted, thank you, but I will defer to HJ Mitchell, I think, who made the block. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Rejected deletion of redirect of Montgomery C. Meigs
I deleted the redirect of Montgomery Cunningham Meigs to Montgomery C. Meigs (1816-1892) Civil War General, when a new article on a descendant with the same name was submitted, viz. Montgomery Cunningham Meigs(1919-1944), commander of the 23rd Tank Battalion during World War II. By rejecting the redirect deletion, it is impossible for the World War II bio to be created. In addition, I searched all of Wikipedia for any redirect or piped link between those names, and edited all references to the Civil War general then so that no page would go to a blank non-redirected page while the new article is being reviewed and created. All of this was explained on the Talk page. Your rationale, which coincidentally, is the same as you gave for the request for speedy deletion for Palais Crystal supra vide, results in just more confusion and more unnecessary work to correct. In addition, I also created a new dab page to replace the redirect, which will send clarify the distinction between four people on Wikipedia with the same name. How exactly do you propose to rectify this? NotaBene 17:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- @NotaBene: I suggest moving Montgomery Cunningham Meigs (disambiguation) to Montgomery Cunningham Meigs per WP:MALPLACED: "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term." :) Would you like me to do that for you? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I created a new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Montgomery_Cunningham_Meigs (at least a Class C article, IMHO) on the World War 2 commander who was killed in action in 1944. The disambiguation page was created to address your concern about being redirected to a blank page, however, when you rejected my deletion of the redirect, another user deleted the reference to the World War 2 commander on the disambiguation page, since it now directed him back to the Civil War general (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montgomery_Cunningham_Meigs_(disambiguation)&curid=49375375&diff=704121102&oldid=704115947). So the purpose of the dab page is now moot, since there is already a Meigs dab page. Per your instructions, I filed a formal RfD, however, the new article is already tagged as already having an existing article, when in fact, it's only a redirect to a different person (the Civil War General, not the World War 2 commander). If you move Montgomery Cunningham Meigs (disambiguation) to Montgomery Cunningham Meigs at this point, then it redirects back to the Civil War general and the new article on the World War 2 commander will never be created. This is getting too complex - I thought the redirect deletion would resolve the issue as soon as the new article is reviewed. Thanks. NotaBene 18:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- @NotaBene: Yes, I misunderstood. Is the page Draft:Montgomery Cunningham Meigs ready to be moved? I'll sort that out for for you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- @NotaBene: I've gone ahead and deleted it to make way for the move. I'll close the request at RFD too. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I created a new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Montgomery_Cunningham_Meigs (at least a Class C article, IMHO) on the World War 2 commander who was killed in action in 1944. The disambiguation page was created to address your concern about being redirected to a blank page, however, when you rejected my deletion of the redirect, another user deleted the reference to the World War 2 commander on the disambiguation page, since it now directed him back to the Civil War general (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montgomery_Cunningham_Meigs_(disambiguation)&curid=49375375&diff=704121102&oldid=704115947). So the purpose of the dab page is now moot, since there is already a Meigs dab page. Per your instructions, I filed a formal RfD, however, the new article is already tagged as already having an existing article, when in fact, it's only a redirect to a different person (the Civil War General, not the World War 2 commander). If you move Montgomery Cunningham Meigs (disambiguation) to Montgomery Cunningham Meigs at this point, then it redirects back to the Civil War general and the new article on the World War 2 commander will never be created. This is getting too complex - I thought the redirect deletion would resolve the issue as soon as the new article is reviewed. Thanks. NotaBene 18:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hold up, guys—hope I catch you in time. There's probably no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name. It would make sense to move Montgomery Cunningham Meigs (disambiguation) to Montgomery Meigs, move the current holder of that article to Montgomery Meigs (born 1945), and put the new article at Montgomery Cunningham Meigs (1919–1944). Typically, dates don't make for the best qualifiers, but in this case, they all have the same nationality and similar professions. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- OK, @BDD: Nothing has been moved yet so there's a bit of time to sort this out. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is above my pay grade. What happens to the original redirect, which sent Montgomery Cunningham Meigs (1816-1892) to Montgomery C. Meigs? Does that redirect still persist? And not to confuse this further, but Montgomery "Monty" Meigs (whose name is actually Montgomery Cunningham Meigs) redirects to Montgomery C. Meigs, Jr. Are you suggesting all of those name be changed to include the dates too? Thanks.NotaBene 19:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and move the disambiguation page to Montgomery Cunningham Meigs as a first step and start a discussion on its talk page. One step at a time... --BDD (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is above my pay grade. What happens to the original redirect, which sent Montgomery Cunningham Meigs (1816-1892) to Montgomery C. Meigs? Does that redirect still persist? And not to confuse this further, but Montgomery "Monty" Meigs (whose name is actually Montgomery Cunningham Meigs) redirects to Montgomery C. Meigs, Jr. Are you suggesting all of those name be changed to include the dates too? Thanks.NotaBene 19:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK, @BDD: Nothing has been moved yet so there's a bit of time to sort this out. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Biscayne Wall listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Biscayne Wall. Since you had some involvement with the Biscayne Wall redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.
Hi Malcolmxl5. You declined my request for speedy deletion of this article as it is a redirect. My mistake. About the redirect, it doesn't redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section of a page on the subject, as there is no mention at all of "Biscayne Wall" on any section of U.S._Route_1_in_Florida#Miami-Dade_County. Nor should there be as it's most likely original research with no verifiability. It's a cleaverly coined phrase WP:A11 not credible in the article about U.S. Route 1. 1305cj (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, 1305cj. It'll get sorted out at RFD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Please help
Hello Malcolmxl5 ! Thank you for your January 22 formatting of the Zoltán Deme AfD page. I am new here and I am working on this 6 years old article that was not properly sourced. I found more than 40 secondary sources that I have now built in. My problem is that almost no one controls what I am doing, thou I have changed more than a half of the article, thus, I should like kindly ask you, that if your time allows, just take a glance to the article and tell me your advises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme My other problem is that this tag "Find sources: "Zoltán Deme" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images" proved to be useless for reaching the sources of the 1960-1980 decades, especially the sources of the past communist countries in East Europe where most of the libraries very poorly digitized. For example "Scholar" gives 1 citation, though just with 10 minutes research I got immediately 20 citations! :[[5]] page 65 [[6]] p.2 [[7]] p.23 [[8]] p.1 [[9]] p.289 [[10]] p.5 [[11]] p.2 [[12]] p.353 [[13]] p.35 [[14]] p.1 [[15]] p.46 [[16]] p.75 [[17]] p.63 [[18]] p.84 [[19]] p.64 [[20]] p.1 [[21]] p.48 [[22]] p.317 [[23]] p.196 [[24]] p.101. (Plus I got many items, as "required reading" in the universities, like [[25]] p.1 [[26]] p.1 [[27]] p.48 [[28]] and so on). For other example, Books, Google Books gives 3 items, while this site (and others) show the pictures and data of more than 20 items! [[29]] [[30]] [[31]] This misleads almost everyone, presents the subject non-notable with only one citation and three books, thus, I had to go over this problem and collect printed material. Would you kindly investigate the improved article, is my work now sufficient? I saw your contributions, so any advice, any proposal, any suggestion would be appreciated! Thanks for reading this, sincerely yours, Norbert. 89.133.187.29 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Norbert. Yes, it can be difficult to find sources in the pre-internet era, especially so I imagine for East European countries.
- Let me touch on the deletion discussion. The nominator, In ictu oculi, has present an argument, in their way, that the subject, Zoltán Deme, does not reach Wikipedia's notability criterion for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The criterion is summed up as: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". The way to counter that is to present a handful of reliable, independent sources that cover the man in some depth. Are there any biographical profiles of Zoltán Deme?
- On the article itself, it is in a unusual format with probably too many references but this can be dealt with as part of the normal editing process.
- Kind regards, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hello Malcolmxl5! Thank you very much for your time and for your review! You understood, in depth, my problems and you lighted the essence for me: "Are there any biographical profiles of Zoltán Deme?" I plan to go on this path ahead, and I will also correct the asymmetry there (unusual format, too many references.) Thanks again, and have please nice days, nice weekend, and good health. Yours sincerely, Norbert.89.133.187.29 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
tithal
Not blanking but adding cut and paste move of content from Tithal Beach.--Vin09 (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I was a bit quick off the mark there. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I2Pd page deletion
Could you, please, explain the reason? It was well prepared page about a mature project containing a lot of reference from different source, including academic. You have deleted it without specifying any reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I2porignal (talk • contribs) 13:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- @I2porignal: Hello, the article was nominated for deletion and after a short discussion, which you can see here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I2Pd, the consensus was to delete the article. The participants cited two reasons: the lack of reliable sources and that the subject did not meet the notability inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
As you might have noticed the statement "he participants cited two reasons: the lack of reliable sources and that the subject did not meet the notability inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia." was from Feb.6, but the articles have been changed a lot after that. I don't see any discussion or consensus about the latests version, except this comment from that guy, who seem to don't like the project personally. From another hand this page is a first-class citizen in the wikipedia-ru https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/I2Pd and we are going to add French one shortly. Please consider restoration of this page, otherwise it would end-up existing in many languages, but English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I2porignal (talk • contribs) 14:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- What happens on the Russian Wikipedia or on the French Wikipedia is not a concern of the English Wikipedia, I2porignal. But why do you say 'we'? Who do you represent? As for the discussion, there were four participants not just the nominator, and it's a pity that you did not take part and put forward your views. The deletion can go forward for review, if you wish. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, it's not a concern, but wouldn't you find it funny to keep claiming something doesn't exists while it actually does in an "another world". Let's assume 'we' as i2pd users asking me for some details. Unforunally I was away and was not able to respond to that two guys at the discussion page before it got closed, so I have to talk to them personally. Please, open that discussion page to let me reply there if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I2porignal (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- @I2porignal: I've reopened the discussion for your comments. It's in the same place: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I2Pd. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:CREATIVE
I simply wanted to that you recently said WP:ACTOR was the criterion but that is actually for the WikiProject. Note that WP:NACTOR and WP:ENTERTAINER are both for WP:CREATIVE and entertainers thus still applicable. Not to mention, everyone else also calls it this so it is common. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I meant WP:NACTOR, I will fix the typos but do note that WP:CREATIVE refers to 'Creative professionals : Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals' while WP:NACTOR refers to 'Entertainers : Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities'. The two are quite clearly separate occupations, shown as such on the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page and are not interchangeable. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists could equally apply to the argument that 'everyone else called it this' (they didn't in those discussions I have closed today) and is an argument to avoid in my view. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
OwenJiang
Malcolmxl5, can you tell me why you deleted my redirecting page? OwenJiang 10:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi OwenJiang, the community does not usually permit redirects from article space to user space and has empowered administrators to delete these speedily; see WP:R2. In this instance, another editor tagged the redirect for speedy deletion under criteria WP:R2 and when I reviewed this, I agreed with their reasoning. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Malcolmx15! OwenJiang 10:07, 19 February 2016 (China Standard Time)
Thanks
Thanks for notifying me--I fixed it. The article I meant was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International and Heritage Languages Association (IHLA). DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, DGG. I would have fixed it myself if I could. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Stanton
Stanton origin doomsday book stanton meaning stoney ground ref@malcolmandjayne@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.66.93 (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2016
- Hi 78.151.66.93, which Stanton would that be? :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For everything. especially Ani Winterysteppe (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC) |
James Alltheway
Dear friend send me instructions concerning the way one must verify the data of a page. Are other pages of publishers, official national data etc, not valit enough to confirm the facts of a page? I am asking in relation to the deletion of the page "Yannis Livadas". Let me know how i can re-create this page. Best regards. Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). http://www.biblionet.gr/author/45330/%CE%93%CE%B9%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%82_%CE%9B%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B2%CE%B1%CE%B4%CE%AC%CF%82, http://www.osdelnet.gr/results?Author_bio=1&Author=1069314 (official pages of Greek Authors National Data), http://www.sea-urchin.net/books/sea-urchin-books/yannis-livadas-strictly-two/, https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%93%CE%B9%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%82_%CE%9B%CE%B5%CE%B9%CE%B2%CE%B1%CE%B4%CE%AC%CF%82. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Alltheway (talk • contribs) 09:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- @James Alltheway:. Hello James, the article was deleted after discussion by the community. The concern was that the sourcing was not sufficient to demonstrate that the subject, Yannis Livadas, meets the English Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. You should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidance, which is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Essentially, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Information on how to identify reliable sources may be found at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
- There's a page about creating articles you may find helpful called Your first article. If you are stuck and looking for help, visit the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I have already checked the Teahouse, yet validity appears to be uncertain in may articles concerning people of literature and arts. That is why i send you the specific links, in order to check that they are more than valid and serious. That is, in order to create a page about this poet, me or anyone else is literary obliged to refer to them. So, i presume that i can proceed. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Alltheway (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- @James Alltheway:. We have many articles that are poorly sourced and they need to be either improved or deleted. If you intend to recreate the article, the sourcing will have to be sufficiently improved from the original so that the result of the deletion discussion no longer apply. Has anyone written about him in the national press? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
According to your opinion, if I understand well what you mean, probably not. But I wonder about something: the pages in Wikipedia are designed to highlight something or someone who exists or to rate it/him, to evaluate it/him? Because my aim is not to evaluate, to promote; is to disclosure something, a man of letters and his work, since this person is alive and present and his work is translated into eight languages. So, I really do not see where the problem lies. If you want help me on that. Would it be a good idea to create this article again with a new conception, data and references, in order to check it (i mean you) and examine its credibility etc? Let me know. Thanks again.
I created a page for Yannis Livadas. I posted basic info, bibliography and a small list of confirmed and official references. Please check it and let me know if everything is alright according to Wikipedia instructions.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Alltheway (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- @James Alltheway:. Hello, James. It looks as though the article has been deleted since the sourcing was not sufficiently improved. If we can find reliable and independent sources that discuss Yannis Livadas and his work in some depth, it would have a better basis for an article. These do not have to be in the English language. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Request help/advice about possible multiple-forum abuse in Connie Fournier article
Hi @Malcolmx15, as a relatively new editor for complex things, I would really appreciate your advice about THIS, which is also related to this. The simultaneous duplication of forums, about essentially the same question (BLP notability) does not seem correct to me. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Denis.g.rancourt:. Hi Denis, it is uncommon for both a deletion discussion and a merge discussion to be happening at the same time but not prohibited. The deletion discussion is probably the better forum for discussing the notability of the subject as it is more likely to get uninvolved eyes on the discussion. In fact, I see that one of our most experienced editors has provided input. I'll take a look at the merge discussion and comment there, if appropriate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response and for your eyes. Much appreciated. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Links to deleted articles
Hi there, I've noticed a few of your edits (like this) popping up in my watchlist, where you've removed links pointing to deleted articles on under-19 cricketers. These links are actually quite useful to WikiProject Cricket, as these players often have their articles re-created within a short period of time (once they've played at senior level, they generally meet our notability standards). Leaving them as red links can save a lot of trouble later on. Other sporting WikiProjects might also find red links useful, though I couldn't say for certain. Outside of that, thanks for your work in this area. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- @IgnorantArmies:. Thank you. I do usually remove links after closing a deletion discussion where it has been determined that the subject does not meet criteria for an article but I will bear what you say in mind. 🙂 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Kooga Rugby Page help
I would first like to state I am new to Wikipedia and apologise if I have not followed guidelines. I have recently put up a Wikipedia page for a Kooga Rugby. I have now received an email this morning receiving a ‘Speedy Deletion Nomination’ - I have attached a screenshot to show the thread. I am by no means trying to advertise anything at all.
I am eager to find a solution to this and would happily take advice on how to resolve this problem and I am happy to remove the text that is the problem - if this matter could be looked into.
I have attached the information I had placed on the page below and was hoping someone could highlight what information 'unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service’
Extended content | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kooga Rugby Limited was established in 1997 in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, England. In July 2009 the brand was purchased by JD Sports plc who help to provide the financial backing to develop the brand and ensure Kooga provides top quality product for it’s retail partners and Professional Clubs. In February 2014, Kooga relocated the main head office to Cheadle Hulme, Cheshire. The product range has been developed to fulfil all the needs of a modern athlete and supporter from training and match play equipment and clothing to a lifestyle range as well as an extremely successful boot range. The emphasis has always been on design excellence, performance, durability and innovation. Today Kooga is recognised as one of the few remaining authentic rugby brands in the market place. Our current sponsorship agreements include Leicester Tigers The Scarlets, Worcester Warriors, Yorkshire Carnegie and The Uruguay National Team in Rugby Union. In Rugby League Kooga sponsor the famous Huddersfield Giants. Previous sponsorships include the Wallabies, Fiji, Canada, USA plus Harlequins, London Irish, The Ospreys, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Northamption Saints and Newcastle Falcons. In 2012, Kooga launched 2 additional product streams to its portfolio. We now offer a bespoke kit option with new short lead times and innovative designs. In addition we also offer a fashion based leisure range. SponsorshipsTeams and associations sponsored by Kooga Rugby worldwide are: Rugby UnionClub teamsRugby LeagueNational teamsPreviously Sponsored TeamsRugby UnionClub teamsNational teamsRugby LeagueWorldwide PartnersRugby is a truly International sport and Kooga is a truly International brand with a wide reaching network of stockists across the globe helping to increase our market share and brand presence on a global scale. Kooga's worldwide partners include:
Kooga Germany Marcken, Contact: Marc van Nieuwpoort, Traaij 192, 3971 GV Driebergen, The Netherlands T: +31 343 75 888 5 Kooga Georgia 9 Tsabadze street, Tbilisi, Georgia T: +995 (571) 01 01 73 Kooga Canada RMP Athletic Locker Limited, 6085 Belgrave Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5R 4E6 T: (+1) 905 361 2418 Kooga GCC RSH Middle East, Level 19, Burjuman Business Tower, Trade Center Road, Bur Dubai, PO Box 20764, Dubai, UAE T: (+971 4) 385 7775 Kooga The Netherlands Marcken, Contact: Marc van Nieuwpoort, Traaij 192, 3971 GV Driebergen, The Netherlands T: +31 343 75 888 5 Kooga Ireland North Ireland North, T: 00353 868118205 Kooga Ireland South Ireland North, T: 00353 868118203 Kooga North America 121 Union Street, West Springfield, Massachusetts, MA 01089 T: (+1) 413 746 9554 Kooga Belguim Marcken, Contact: Marc van Nieuwpoort, Traaij 192, 3971 GV Driebergen, The Netherlands T: +31 343 75 888 5 Kooga New Zealand 45 Tennyson Street, Napier, Hawkes Bay, PO Box 619, Napier 4140, Hawkes Bay, New Zealand T: (+64) 6650 20 50 Kooga Italy AMT SPORTS SRL, Piazza della repubblica 9/10, 57123 Livorno- Italy T: 0039 586 839502 Kooga Portugal & Spain Giltec, Sociedade Representações Desportivas Lda, Av. Engº Arantes e Oliveira nº8, 1900-222 Lisboa, Portugal T: +351218462406 Kooga Scandinavia Eric O'Neill, Nordic Branding Online, Karlagatan 7, 65223 Karlstad, Sweden T: 0046 706 187 865 Kooga South Africa RibeiroCorp Trading, Contact: Daniel Ribeiro, M: PO Box 1212, Bassonia, Johannesburg, 2061 T: +27 82 787 6799 Kooga Poland Rugby Group Mateusz Niedzwiecki, Contact: Mateusz Niedzwiecki, T: +48 503 137 917 ReferencesExternal linksCategory:Companies established in 2007 Category:Companies based in Queensland Category:Clothing companies of Australia Category:Sportswear brands Category:Sporting goods brands Category:Clothing brands Category:Sporting goods manufacturers of Australia Category:Australian brands Category:Companies based on the Gold Coast, Queensland |
Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
Garethbaillie (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Garethbaillie: Hi Gareth, there are a few problems with this. The first problem, and why it was deleted, is the promotional tone of the prose. This is not surprising because the first section is word for word what is in the 'brand history' section of the Kooga catalogue. Similarly the 'worldwide partners' section is word for word what is on the 'international partners' webpage of the Kooga website (the website is on a blacklist so I can't link directly to it: http://www.kooga-rugby.com/international-partners.htm). This brings us to another problem: copying stuff like that is a copyright violation, it's breaking copyright law, and Wikipedia does not want that. A third problem is the lack of sourcing - every Wikipedia article should be based based on verifiable statements from significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Wikipedia also has a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list - if it doesn't have suitable sourcing then it's more likely to be proposed for deletion.
- 'Significant coverage' addresses the subject directly and in depth; a 'reliable source' is one with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; a 'third-party source' is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered.
- Your first task then is to find multiple, suitable sources about the subject and when you have these, to write factually, in your own words, a balanced piece of prose summarising them. If you want to practice, you can write in your sandbox or use Wikipedia:Articles for creation where you can get a second opinion from a more experienced contributor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Cielo24
Hi, could you please email me Cielo24 page that you deleted. Thanks.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, Cube b3, no problem. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am going to work more on the page and create it in my sandbox and present it to you before moving it to the site. I hope you will proof it for me.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, Cube b3. The sourcing will have to be sufficiently improved from the original that the AfD result no longer apply. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Noted.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- When I wrote that page I modeled it after another similar company Vocapia Research. I figured since Vocapia is notable enough, my article is 10 times better. Subsequently, Vocapia was also nominated for deletion and deleted. However, as you can see it is back online. I don't want to nominate an article for the sake of it, but other Wikipedians may be confused and create another article for a similar voice recognition company thinking their preferred company is more notable than Vocapia. I don't know I just want to bring it to your attention.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Cube b3, I don't think the new Vocapia Research article would pass AFD, the sourcing doesn't look good enough to me. I'll keep an eye on it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- When I wrote that page I modeled it after another similar company Vocapia Research. I figured since Vocapia is notable enough, my article is 10 times better. Subsequently, Vocapia was also nominated for deletion and deleted. However, as you can see it is back online. I don't want to nominate an article for the sake of it, but other Wikipedians may be confused and create another article for a similar voice recognition company thinking their preferred company is more notable than Vocapia. I don't know I just want to bring it to your attention.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Noted.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, Cube b3. The sourcing will have to be sufficiently improved from the original that the AfD result no longer apply. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am going to work more on the page and create it in my sandbox and present it to you before moving it to the site. I hope you will proof it for me.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Isaiah Richardson Jr. AfD
I am writing to all those who participated in this discussion at the BLP Noticeboard that I have now nominated this article for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaiah Richardson Jr. Voceditenore (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Voceditenore. When I get back in front of a computer (am on the phone), I'll post my thoughts. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
File:NovoGamer logo, 1 March 2016.png heads up
The NovoGamer article was deleted as a result of the AfD process, but File:NovoGamer logo, 1 March 2016.png remains and is not used elsewhere. The file was uploaded using a fair use claim. Thanks. Elaenia (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Elaenia. I've deleted it per CSD F5. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
:-)
- "I'm sure she is but why don't you tell her that yourself?" That is very sweet. I hope the creator gets the message :-) Xender Lourdes (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- :-) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
A quick FYI
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 13#Sufferance Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Noted, thank you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
I just want to thank you for your help with the blocks of the IP socks. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, I see Doug Weller has protected the page now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The Devil's Brigade
I came across these pages last night. They were somewhat of a mess, but I thought I had them straightened out, until I saw you move one. There is;
- The Devil's Brigade
- The Devil's Brigade (disambiguation)
- Devil's Brigade
- Devil's Brigade (disambiguation)
- Devils Brigade
- Devils Brigade (album)
I was curious why you swapped the first pair (not criticism). FYI; I have just changed the second pair to avoid double redirects. The last pair are straight articles. Cheers - theWOLFchild 20:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Thewolfchild, this was a {{db-movedab}} request made by Some Gadget Geek to move the disambiguation page fixing what's called a 'misplaced disambiguation page'. I did a few of those requests today. You can find out more about this work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. Essentially, the guidance is that the title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. As you noticed, the pages are swapped around, the disambiguation content comes to rest at the page titled with the term while the page with '(disambiguation)' in the title is retained as a redirect for use with incoming links such as from hatnotes. Thanks for sorting out the double redirects, I didn't spot those, and for your work in straightening the pages out yesterday. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- And thank you for the info. Cheers - theWOLFchild 21:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
TearSolutions
I would appreciate suggestions on acceptable elements of a reintroduced TearSolutions page. The main issues of the deleted page were perceived lack of notability, and authorship. Recent new opportunities should address the first. An independent author would address the second. Glaurie (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Glaurie, good quality sourcing is everything. The relevant inclusion criteria are the general notability guideline and the more specific guideline for organizations and companies. Both rely on significant coverage in secondary sources that are reliable, and independent of the subject. Get the sourcing right and the rest will follow.
- Any new article will have to be sufficiently improved from the original so that the result of the deletion discussion no longer apply. You may find it helpful to go through the article for creation process using the article wizard. Editors at the Wikipedia Teahouse will be able to provide advice along the way. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Johnny Jet AfD closing
Are you sure deleting was the correct outcome? Only three participants with one opting to keep, the nom only brought up it looks like an advert which is a surmountable issue as well as incorrectly identifying the subject as only a "blogger." --Oakshade (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Oakshade, the nominator put forward the argument that the subject was not notable, AdventurousMe agreed and SwisterTwister could only find mentions in his searches, i.e not the significant coverage that is needed. CLCStudent argued keep but did so on the basis on that the subject "appears on radio shows, and in over 3,000 publications.", which is not a policy or guideline based argument. But I'm happy to undo my close and relist the AfD and will do that shortly. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Villige Pump
What's the villige pump? 82.8.133.241 (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's where the community gets together to discuss ideas, make proposals, discuss technical matters, discuss policy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- And where sis it? 82.8.133.241 (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- The village pump can be found at this link Wikipedia:Village pump. I would suggest that you float your ideas in the ideas lab: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab), where they can be discussed before being proposed to the community. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
ANI comment
Enough. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think you'll find that the name calling is attributed to Cassianto calling me a numpty, not me inserting a word into his comment. — Calvin999 23:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
|
--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am a friend to the emerging Marathi Actor - Abhinav Paatekar and would want to request you to undelete the page. below are some links that should help out in verifying.
Times of India mentions about the Actor by his old name Abhinay Patekar in the article of actress / co-star Tejaswini Pandit Ticha Umbartha (Movie)
another few links - link link link mentioning the same.
And the movie trailer where the actor can be spotted at 2:30 sec
And trailer of another movie where the actor is lead.
And another movie with a mention in wiki and a soundtrack video
Kunjesh (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Kunjesh, I'm afraid I must decline to undelete the page on Abhinav Paatekar as the sources you put forward would not sufficiently improve the article from the original so that the result of the deletion discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhinav Paatekar) no longer apply, and the page would be again deleted.
- To meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for an article, Abhinav Patekar would have to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources that you put forward show that he exists but not that he meets the inclusion criteria:
-
- Tejaswini Tejaswini Pandit to show naari shakti - this is an article about the film, Ticha Umbartha, it is coverage of the film but not of Abhinav Patekar.
- Grand release of Marathi cinema 'Ticha Umbartha' - this is an article about the film, Ticha Umbartha, it is coverage of the film but not of Abhinav Patekar.
- Ravi Dewan producing Tejaswini Pandit-starrer Ticha Umbartha - - this is an article about the film, Ticha Umbartha, it is coverage of the film but not of Abhinav Patekar.
- Ticha Umbartha Movie Trailer - this is an article about the film, Ticha Umbartha, it is coverage of the film but not of Abhinav Patekar; it also appears to be a blog, which are not usually acceptable as a source.
- Thicha Umbertha Trailer 6 - this is not significant coverage of Abhinav Patekar and also YouTube videos are rarely accepted as sources.
- Pyar Bhari Madhoshiyaan Official Trailer - this is not significant coverage of Abhinav Patekar and also YouTube videos are rarely accepted as sources.
- Jugaad - this is not significant coverage of Abhinav Patekar.
- Tuzya Priticha Lala Lagala - - this is not significant coverage of Abhinav Patekar and also YouTube videos are rarely accepted as sources.
- Alternatively, if there were good quality sources that show that Abhinav Patekar has any of the following:
- then it may be presumed that he is noteworthy enough to warrant an article. However, none of the sources presented show this in my view.
- If you were able to find, for example, newspaper articles that are written about Abhinav Patekar then we can discuss this further. As always, if are unhappy with what I have written and you believe that significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page, you may raise the matter with the community at Wikipedia:Deletion review. I'm sorry not to be more helpful but this may be a case of it simply being too soon for an article about Abhinav Patekar. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Malcolmxl5, May be a case of it simply being too soon. Thank you for your support. Kunjesh (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
undeletion of Josef Shirdel
Hello Malcolmxl5, the article Josef Shirdel was deleted some time ago due to this discussion. The reason the article was deleted was because the subject didn't qualify for WP:NFOOTBALL, which it didn't at the time but does now has this person appeared in a professional match see here. As you were the closing admin to the discussion I am asking you to please undelete this article. Thank you. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Inter&anthro, yes, appearing for his national team in a World Cup qualifier appears to satisfy WP:NFOOTY#1, Players who have played in ... any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA ... are notable.. I'll restore it shortly. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, it's restored. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Please undelete Clarawood
Hi there. I recently created a page called Clarawood but several days ago another editor called CDRL102 made sweeping edits to it. I undid most of those edits (not all) and asked for any problems they had with the content of the page to be raised on the talk for it. Instead the editor encouraged another admin to move it to their sandbox, listed it for deletion and then you deleted it based on R2 ie a useless redirect.
The editor and the admin concerned both suggested that the page was simply trivia and unreferenced etc. This is quite simply not true as I had already argued. They also suggested the article was pointless as they had never heard of Clarawood. It was also suggested that I had simply reverted every edit made to the page - also not true. The other admin who moved the page accused me of not abiding by the rules of how to write a page. This is not true as the page was not only factual and encyclopeadic but clear, concise and referenced. I was also accused of writing a biased, promotional article as I am a resident of the area. This again was not true as a read of it will show that drug use, paramiltarism, deprivation and other detrimental issues were highlighted.
If my article was indeed unreferenced, badly written and of no value to anyone then I would accept the deletion. However the page followed Wikipedia guidelines, was well written and was certainly of value to anyone interested in Clarawood. I feel that the other admin moved it to a redirect as a ruse to get it deleted without proper discussion which did indeed then happen.
I would ask that it be restored to the state I left it in at my last edit on 22nd March at 21.21. Thank you
Clarawood123 (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Clarawood123, in fact, the article has not been deleted, rather it has been moved and now rests at User:CDRL102/Clarawood. What I deleted was just a link from one page to that page, there was no content or history other than that link.
- Looking into this a bit more, as far as I can see, you started the page in your sandbox on 4 March and moved it into the article space on 14 March. I see that other editors have reviewed and made some edits to it, which is the way of the wiki (work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited by anyone). Davey2010 nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clarawood on 23 March expressing concerns as to whether the subject meets Wikipedia's 'notability' guideline for inclusion in the encyclopedia and concerns over the sourcing. CDRL102 persuaded Davey2010 to withdraw his nomination and to move it into another sandbox, where it now rests, at User:CDRL102/Clarawood. CDRL102 appears to have acted with good intentions here to prevent the article being deleted and with the aim of improving it so that it can be returned to the article space without fear of it being deleted. I would suggest that you and CDRL102 collaborate to sort out issues with the article; this will mean discussing these and how to fix them, probably on the talk page.
- Looking at the article itself, it does seem to me to be short on sourcing. Articles on Wikipedia are built upon sources, that is, we gather the sources about the subject and then summarise what they say. There are a lot of facts in the article that do not cited sources, for example, "The go ahead for a new housing development at what was known as the Clara Park site was approved in March 1949 and inspected by the Housing Committee of The Belfast Corporation in October that year."; it's not sourced but there must be a source and the article would be improved if that source was cited. The sourcing should be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and are needed not just to support the facts but to show that the subject meets the 'notability' guideline for inclusion.
- You may find Wikipedia:Your first article helpful reading and editors at the Wikipedia:Teahouse will be glad to help with any questions that you may have.
- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me Malcolmx15, this is the whole point - there is a very clear reference in the article to multiple sources at the Public Records Office - in other words published references for everything in the article. This is in addition to the multiple particular references. As to notability I have reviewed the guidelines on this and the article as it stood was very clearly within the guidelines. Not all notability info or reference info or attributable sources are online. So if someone with no knowledge of a subject does a quick online search as their only justification for stating something is not notable, they have made a mistake. This is also very clear in the Wikipedia guidelines. CDRL102 has a history of pointless edits to pages which they have no expertise in as a quick perusal of their talk page shows. Out of 12 items 11 are people saying please do not change this page again or your edit was useless or something similar. The Clarawood page was actually published in February and had been active for some weeks, the Clarawood page has been deleted and what is in CDRL102's sandbox is different and indeed non factual as it stands due to some of their supposed improvements. I would doubt very much that CDRL102 would be able to improve on the article I wrote and I have a number of reasons for saying that, considering that I probably have literally no peer in terms of Clarawood expertise. I had previously asked them to raise issues on the talk page rather than blankly edit. I should also mention that Davey2010 took it upon himself to delete comments of mine from talk pages and that due to their ruse in listing it for speedy deletion rather than a proper discussion I was unable to rebuff their - false - assertions of bias, non notability and non referencing. I was also accused of writing a promotional article and acting as if I owned the page. These assertions were also false but I did not get a chance in the deletion discussion which should have lasted a week to talk about this or defend myself. Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that whilst it is an open editing site, edits should be constructive and made from a position of some expertise and that editors and admins should be very careful when undertaking any edit especially a substantial one. They are even clearer on proper procedure when listing sites for deletion and it does not seem to me that these were followed. If you are unwilling to help it looks like I will have to raise a deletion review instead Clarawood123 (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you really want, I will re-instate the article, we'll submit it for review and see what happens. CDRL102 (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- That's a helpful suggestion, CDRL102. It seems though we are overtaken by events as deletion review has been requested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Triumph of Love
That was a mistake. Why did you do it? Please reverse. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: Hi Johnbod, this was the outcome of a {{db-movedab}} request made by Some Gadget Geek. The rationale was to move a malplaced disambiguation page per WP:DABNAME: The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. Why do you say that was a mistake? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is a primary topic, but it has no article yet, though I intend to do one sometime. As it stands, it is a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is clearly none. If you would like to contest this decision further please go and tag the talk page with {{RM}} and your rationale. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is a primary topic, but it has no article yet, though I intend to do one sometime. As it stands, it is a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Perhaps I can make a suggestion, Johnbod. When the article comes to be written, we can talk about moving pages to accommodate it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Undeletion
Hi Mr. 5! Regarding Talk:Huang Zi Tao/Page content Dispute 1, which you deleted G8, this actually turns out to be the talk page archive for Talk:Huang Zi Tao, so would not be expected to have a parent page. I was in the process of investigating this yesterday when Life happened, so could not follow through. I thought the creator was compiling a sub-page/archive for a specific dispute to centralize the history, but it now appears that he was just archiving off the contents of that dispute, and chose this name to reflect the only content that was archived. So if you would, can you restore this page, either to its current name and I'll fix the archiving and the title, or restore to Talk:Huang Zi Tao/Archive 1? Thanks, CrowCaw 21:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Crow: Thanks, Crow. I've done as you asked and moved it to Talk:Huang Zi Tao/Archive 1. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Deletion review for Clarawood
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Clarawood. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Clarawood123 (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Clarawood123: Thanks Clarawood123. I'll comment there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Richard d'Anjolell
A rather complex issue regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard d'Anjolell: The page was moved from User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell to the article namespace (It wasn't moved by the author in whose namespace it resided). The guideline on such moves WP:STALEDRAFT states "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace". The user nominating it, who also moved the page, states in the nomination "Several editors insist that MfD can not consider WP:GNG so I've moved the page to mainspace to allow a wider discussion on the merits of this article." Two issues: By nominating the page for deletion, the user clearly implicates they didn't think it was suitable for the mainspace, which makes the move inappropriate; Because of this, WP:AfD wouldn't be the proper forum, MfD would.
So, that leads to my request, would you restore the content to User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell? Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Godsy:. Yes, a bit complicated. I take your point that the guideline says "If suitable for mainspace, move to mainspace". Plainly this was not suitable and ought not have been moved to mainspace so I'll restore it as you request a little later. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Godsy: I have restored the page to User:Kemdflp/richard d'anjolell as you requested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- It has been well established that there is no rule against moving to mainspace and AfDing it. You should not read the guideline in reverse of what it says, ie it is permissive, but does not bar other actions or options. Even if you disagree with the move, restoring material deleted via xfd does nothing to help the project. Now we get to delete it all over again and Godsy has no interest in the page [32] or cleaning up his mess. Also, I was not notified of this request or your response to it, even though it constitutes a direct attack on my actions and will be used to tar me as bad. Legacypac (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not going to reply to the accusations and falsehoods in Legacypac's comment, but I will make a statement: If Malcolmxl5 hadn't restored the content, I would have taken this to WP:DRV (discussion with the closing administrator is required per WP:DELREVD), where the deletion would likely have been overturned anyway. Graffiki (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graffiki) at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 4#Graffiki, which is very similar to this circumstance, looks like it will be overturned. My actions are all within proper process.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- It has been well established that there is no rule against moving to mainspace and AfDing it. You should not read the guideline in reverse of what it says, ie it is permissive, but does not bar other actions or options. Even if you disagree with the move, restoring material deleted via xfd does nothing to help the project. Now we get to delete it all over again and Godsy has no interest in the page [32] or cleaning up his mess. Also, I was not notified of this request or your response to it, even though it constitutes a direct attack on my actions and will be used to tar me as bad. Legacypac (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Toilet Partition
I must commend you. It must have taken considerable self control not to write "the result was flush". Anmccaff (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Anmccaff:. Ha ha, yes, I pulled the chain on that one. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Suppressed edits to my user talk page
Could you please email me the contents of the suppressed edits to my user talk page and user page? Thank you. Kailey 2001 (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Kailey 2001:. Hi Kailey, virtually all the edits that I suppressed contained pictures of a graphic nature so I shall decline to email them to you. I see your talkpage has been semi-protected, which ought control the situation for now. Do ping if you have any more problems. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Procedural Query
Hi Malcolmxl5,
A question: I noticed you closed debate on the AfD for Pierre Fitch (2nd nomination), citing consensus that subject failed PORNSTAR/GNG, which is true. But I noted that subject clearly passed the "cult following" requirement of WP:ENT and no one disputed or even addressed that. People just saw a pornstar who failed PORNSTAR and !voted to delete. But since !votes aren't just a vote count and are supposed to consider the quality of arguments presented, I wondered about closing debate in favor of deletion when such a substantive opposing argument went unrefuted or discussed. Everyone agreed subject failed PORNSTAR and some felt GNG too, but no one claimed a fail of ENT as well. I'm not defending the article, which I think is actually pretty poor (and probably contributed to the delete !votes.) But from a policy and procedure perspective, I just have concerns about a delete decision, albeit with consensus, that is reached without that consensus addressing and/or considering all the relevant issues raised. Then it does just become "a tally of votes," instead of being based on "reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @X4n6: Well, the discussion was open for ten days. The nomination was made on the 21 March, I closed it on 31 March. The discussion had come to an end on the 27 March, four days earlier. It was reasonable to assume that all arguments that were going to be made had been made and that it was an appropriate time to assess the consensus. My reading of the discussion was that valid arguments were made that the subject failed Wikipedia's PORNSTAR/GNG guidelines. The argument, also valid, that the subject has "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" was made but it gained no traction, I saw no support for it. The rough consensus was clearly to delete in my view and I saw no other way of closing the discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hi Malcolmxl5, thanks for your response. Please understand that I'm not shooting the messenger. Your closure was within your discretion. My concern also wasn't about the length of the debate, nor the unanimous consensus that the subject failed PORNSTAR, or the rough consensus that GNG also failed. My concern was that no one addressed the fact that the subject clearly passed ENT, which you saw. Passed it by any reasonable or objective standard. Whether there was "traction" or "support" for ENT, misses my point. No one ever even addressed it - suggesting either that no one saw it, or no one cared - because their minds were already made up. But unless I'm missing something, ignoring a policy or standard doesn't make it simply vanish. If a subject legitimately passes ENT - or any other standard for that matter - whether it passed another standard or not; it seems that subject should have been immune from deletion. We don't just delete weak articles. Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." And also: "Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it." Otherwise, you open a Pandora's Box of people willfully ignoring "inconvenient" standards, in favor of standards that support conclusions they want to reach. It's just not in the best interests of the project to reward that behavior. I would have just relisted it. To direct people to discuss the merits of ENT saving it. By the way, I don't have a vested interest in that BLP. My interest is in saving articles that policies and standards dictate should be saved; and only deleting those no policies save. X4n6 (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- We rarely get a perfect discussion at AfD. I assumed in good faith that all those who took part in the discussion, except possibly the nominator, saw your arguments and chose not to support them, choosing instead to cite PORNBIO & GNG. I bear in mind too, that meeting one or more criteria for WP:ENT does not guarantee that a subject should be included in the encyclopedia, it doesn't make an article immune from deletion. Could the discussion have been relisted? Possibly. Nobody made that call when the seven days for discussion were up and with discussion having ceased for four days, and the consensus seemingly being clear to me, I chose to close it that way. But thank you for your comments and I will bear them in mind. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I genuinely appreciate your taking the time to thoughtfully consider my concerns and address them. So, thank you for that. And I completely understand your rationale for closing it. I suppose I just operated under the assumption that AfDs function on the merits of the arguments, not just the vote count. But I get it now, and again, I appreciate and accept your explanation. In future, I'll just try harder to be sure that all important perspectives are at least acknowledged, if not considered, during the debate. Thanks again. Regards. X4n6 (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
IP editor "Claudia" actually banned a fourth time
Thanks for your table of admin action against Claudia at ANI. Below that table I have provided a link to a further block, that one was for a month. BlackCab (TALK) 05:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have added that and another block to the table.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing things
Hi, Malcolmxl5. That you for squaring things up on National Guard of Russia. There is one minor correction to the copied notice that I will leave to you to attend to. Here is the correct copy diff. I was confused by the current one, but I figured out what was wonky. Nice work. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
19:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Checkingfax. Hopefully all is sorted now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
hello
could you open the site from the artist Stuart Styron or write an article together? Thank.--2.243.198.61 (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @2.243.198.61: I've had a look at the Stuart Styron page. It has been deleted multiple times for a variety of reasons but most importantly, it has been discussed twice by the community and found not to meet Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines. The key to meeting Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines is "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject." Unless such sources are forthcoming, an article on Stuart Styron is not likely to be written. Has the mainstream media written about Stuart Styron? A cursory glance in English and German doesn't reveal anything. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
IP block
Please unblock ip range 49.196.0.0/22. It is a dynamic Optus mobile phone service range, the 2nd biggest telephone company in Australia. Or at least put me back on the IP block exemption list, as I was caught by it for a while this morning.
Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Consider it done, The-Pope. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Schmitty
I'm going to suggest that IP 2.244.158.181 focuses on sources as I describe above rather than individuals. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hey there, be careful who you help out. This Schmitty User is the most dangerous and radical user ever. He deleting all written words by himself and leave just the negative Things , that people like you believe that he is a good wikipedian. check out deep his work here.[doing trouble with users] check out all the sites and discussions. than you will face the hard truth. he is laughing also about the engl. wiki and spain and others. He is a cold german and hate everything, when someone doing not what he wants. So please get away from him. Better you listen. Don`t be at the wrong side, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.244.158.181 (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
|
--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Viliumes
what ist Viliumes? --Tabbelio (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've no idea, we don't have an article by that name. Did you mean something else? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Some stroopwafels for you!
![]() |
Thanks for helping clean up after my fumble with the merge template! giso6150 (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC) |
- That's no problem, giso6150! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Rottweiler
Good morning,
How has this IP been able to edit [33] following the protection placed earlier [34]? — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard | 10:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Gareth Griffith-Jones:. Hi, Gareth, there was no change to the existing pending changes protection, I just fixed the template on the page after an IP tampered with it and the bot replaced it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your explanation. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard | 17:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirecting to blank page
Thanks for the explanation. I will advise my student to not delete the redirect until he can replace it with content. That should happen soon. Oaxacanalia (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Oaxacanalia, when the draft page is approved, let me know. I'll delete the redirect and move the new page in its place. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Update: Mmcao has replaced the redirect with a re-edited draft--with an unreviewed tag--in hopes of getting more feedback. Oaxacanalia (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK, Oaxacanalia, I'll watchlist it and see how it gets on. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept edit warring
Thesandboxuser Keeps edit warring at me, Can you please revoke talk page access? KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have just done so, KGirlTrucker87. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hope that user don't return as a sock. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- He will be very obvious if he does! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hope that user don't return as a sock. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thanks for reverting vandalism at the sandbox and my talk page, I seen lots of IP-hoppers vandalizing my talk page, now you semi-protect my talk page and blocked many IPs, Keep it up! Otherwise, cheers. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
- You're welcome. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)