User talk:Gazh

Pow Sows

Ha ... I enjoyed the objection on the grounds that, "It also suggests that Cornish is an ancient English language which of course it is not." With a few more edits like that, we could recruit you into the Wiki Republician Army! --sony-youth^pléigh 21:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Geordie

Hi Gaz. I removed your reference as the link is supposed to support the statement that a significant number of people in Sunderland take offense at being called "Geordie". A source must be "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (Wikipedia:Reliable sources). The article hardly shows evidence of being an authority on the views of people in Sunderland, especially given the joky nature of it ('don't call us Geordies!'). I don't disagree with what is said (which is why I didn't remove the text), but to improve the article for people reading it (so they know it's coming from a good reliable source), good references are needed. Maybe some local historian or something has something relevent to say that could support this statement? Logoistic 23:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a preliminary glance at the internet and there doesn't seem to be much there. Moreover, this BBC "voices" survey (see here seems to think "Geordie" and North East are one and the same! This article (here) is interesting, and quotes from somebody who seems to have done a bit of research, but again there is no expliclit mention o0f people hating being called a Geordie. Logoistic 11:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart edits

Please, discuss your problems with edits on the Discussion page, and not via the abbreviated format of the edit summary. Clearly, the point is in contention, so it requires discussion. I've reverted it back, and it would be best if it stayed that way until discussion is concluded. The low-grade edit-warring is disruptive. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to vote

You as someone who participated in the editing of English people article might be interested in taking part in this discussion. Feel free to state your opinion. M.V.E.i. 16:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I know I've done some serious work on the article Mackem my aim is to get it to a Good article status so its something that wikipedia can be proud of, compared to the article Geordie it actually is a lot better in quality and references. The sunder king 14:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would consider creating an article on the bridges. After all it is quite notable, go ahead and create it but make sure you put a lot of content in it. Or someone might come along and consider it for deletion. The sunder king 14:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I've done a few edits to the article to improve its quality. I will also stick a bit of history in there aswell, and perhaps upload a logo. The sunder king 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There, I've done quite a bit more to it now. What do you think? The sunder king 10:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

added it in about the extention. The sunder king 13:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay then I've done some minor edits on that. Its notable enough, but I don't know much about the Crowtree Leisure center. I don't think there's anything else sunderland related to create an article on. --The sunder king 13:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Bridges one is secure, with 26 million shoppers a year that is notable! it also has a lot of google hits, but I know how many deletionists work. There are a lot of pratts here on wikipedia and I figure that after 3 months, but you have been here longer. The sunder king 13:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wearside

Hey Gaz, thanks for the message. It's pointless speculating as to what people think about their local identity, as you cannot be sure unless you either sources that either survey people on it (such as those taken on County identites in the early 1990s), or have sources that can be resonably assumed to represent this opinion qualitatively (e.g. local history accounts). The fact of the matter is that Wearside centres around Sunderland - but without clear sources defining its boundaries we should not be adding any claims other than this. In any case, my personal experience of growing up here (just outside of Durham) is that we are definantly NOT part of Wearside. We don't get the Sunderland Echo here. The "Durham" News section is likely referring to those areas in the non-metropolitan county of Durham that border the place - such as Seaham - I know the Sunderland Echo sells well there! It's more the Northern Echo in these parts! In any case, I can't easily back this up with sources either (I suppose I could if I really tried - but I just never have the time to go and get some books out on anything like this), so have left it the 'centre around Sunderland' bit! Logoistic 21:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

reply

I have replied to your comment on User talk:El-Nin09/WikiCup. The sunder king 14:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Upper class masturbators

What was that all about? I wish I was upper class, then I might be able to afford my council tax. You have to go a long way back in my family tree to find any titled people... --MacRusgail 16:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC) p.s. Tell Jonah Lomu he's upper class. :)

Don't read too much into that Rus it was a passing comment, i think it depends on the region whether or not Rugby fans/players are voting Conservative or not, certainly in my little part of the world the only people who play or are very interested in Rugby tend to be big-eared blond lads with posh accents. I mean, don't get me wrong, i look for the results of all home nations - but it certainly does not engulf me. Gazh 17:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Canny win for England though, eh ? Gazh 09:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think rugby was an upper class game (Old Etonians are a soccer club). Nor did I realise that upper class people were more prone to masturbate than other people. Be that as it may, is there anything wrong with being posh, upper class, having blond hair or being rich? Would you make adverse comments about black people, Asians, Jews or Roman Catholics? I'm from Ireland, like soccer, have brown hair and hate the English class system and the bitterness that goes with it. Live and let live. Millbanks (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Rugby is definately reserved for the more prosperous round these parts, and ofcourse there is nothing wrong with being upper-class or blonde, although forgive me if i may envy their secure financial situation. There is certianly nothing wrong with Asians, Blacks or Jews either and as a Roman Catholic it would be a bit daft to make adverse comments about myself.

This is old news Millbanks, what made you traipse it up? Gazh (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I came across a comment you'd made that, "the English lost their language to germanic invaders", and wondered where on earth you were coming from to make a comment like that. Then my eye caught what appeared to be a class warrior comment. Anyhow, relax. See St Matthew ch 19, v 24 Millbanks (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

RE:The original comment about the loss of language.

The people that lived in what is in now called England before the Angles invaded spoke the old language. Modern English people today descend overwhelmingly from these people (in varying degrees up and down the land), so in result we can safely say that our ancestors native languages were lost.

The loss probably has alot to do with the geographical location of England in comparison to Ireland, Wales and to a lesser extent Scotland. The so called Celtic countries were better equipped to retain their languages as England was at the forefront of invasion, due to it being alot closer to the continent, Britain worked as a barrier or shield of sorts to Ireland.

That was my point.

In short, Ireland can thank their ginger pubes that there isn't a more westerly nation off your Galway coast as they'd probably be calling you lot the bloody English wankers. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The people who lived in what is now England before the Anglo-Saxon invasion were not English. They were British. Millbanks (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point, to me they were English, in the same way the people in Scotland were still Scottish before the Scotti invaded. A name's a name Millbank, nowt else. Gazh (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

English and Welsh indpendence user boxes

Hi Gazh, I took them down because I was getting way too much flack (slash personal attacks) from a very small but determined number of editors who were using them as evidence to paint anything I had to say as extremist and politically-motivated trouble making. I was not so much concerned about what these editors had to say, but it was having a negative effect on "by-standers" who got nervous about the whiff of POV from the sh*t that was being thrown at me. It's unfortunate, but it was just getting too great. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"... may i ask why it's ok to take away England and leave Scotland?" Beats me too, but it was straight away as soon as the England and Welsh boxes went up that the abuse started. In any case, I think it's implicit (United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland?). --sony-youth^pléigh 16:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gazh

Hi Gazh, you may be intrested in joining the small wiki I've just set up. Alien research wiki. Basically its just a research project on aliens and there is no limit to what you actually create. The sunder king 14:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers i'll av a gander tonight. Gazh 15:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

WPE banners

Hi gaz, There are 257 parishes in Cornwall. Will you be clagg tagging them all? good luck. Talskiddy 21:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to inform you but

WikiCup Announcement

You have been eliminated from the WikiCup in the group round. This was worked by the total number of points generated by your edit count and number of unique pages, etc. We hope that you will join us again for another competition The sunder king 18:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Gazh, to some

I have gave a bit away in an edit to you here (included: Sunderland, as in 'to some' (like people in Sunderland)), so we can keep this bit of information up (put a cite source marking there is you want). Being leaving this up will lead to research cues for people to find sources, which will ultimately in due course improve this article.

Regarding the 1973 final. I have seen the original on TV on a couple of occassions and I have heard the commentator who I think was the late Brian Moore- refer to the Sunderland fans as geordies, and I can remember the fans singing Geordies. So I sourced that in good faith. However I'm willing to back down on that, giving you the benefit of the doubt with you saying you have the copy. I'll give you that one. My brain could be being retrospective.

I'll leave that source out for now. Perhaps as a peace offering you can say you have took it out in a neutral fashion on the discussion board?

All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.69.42 (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

hey Gazh

I've just created an article on Monkwearmouth Colliery, have a look and tell me what you think. The sunder king 19:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks really good mate, I'll try and add some bits in the next few days. Gazh 18:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Rijk Van Roog‎ hoax

You recently created the article Rijk Van Roog. Could you explain to me on what information you based the article? I'm Dutch, I'm a football lover, but I have never ever heard of this name, even though according to the article he played for the club of the city I live in. Add to that the fact that the surname Van Roog doesn't exist. You appear to be an established and credible editor, but the article you created appears to be nothing but a hoax. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

After some thoughts, I have decided to nominate the article for deletion. You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rijk Van Roog‎. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You also created English Potato Famine, for which there is no evidence that this existed or is called thus. It is also nominated for deletion. This makes two articles in a row that look remarkably like hoaxes. If this correct, then please consider this as a final warning. Creating more of these nonsense will get you blocked, despite your previous record of good edits. Fram (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"English Potato Famine" is no hoax (as neither is the Dutch Potato Famine of the same time). Potato famine struck throughout north-western Europe in the mid 1840's. However, in comparison to the Irish experience, the effects elsewhere were to create a food crisis, rarely verging on a true famine. An exception to ex-Ireland Europe are the Scottish Highlands, however, which deserve special treatment as they were particularly harshly struck, and the social/economics effects of the crisis were destroying for the Highlands.

The topic would be better treated as three articles: Irish Potato Famine, Highland Potato Famine, and European Potato Famine. I had proposed to start the latter article before. I suggest that Cornish Potato Famine and English Potato Famine be merged into that, as they stand no realistic chance of becoming more than just stubs and would be better treated in the pan-European context. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sony, whenever you're ready to apologise Fram, I'll be right here. Gazh (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, you created one certain hoax (Rijk Van Roog), and one article which is an unattributed copy of Cornish Potato Famine, and which has no indication either inside or outside the article that it reflects an existing subject of historic research (i.e., no one uses the title of your article at all), and you have the guts to expect an apology? No way. 12:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)

And over the head it goes, never mind Fram. Gazh (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't explained Rijk Van Roog, Gazh. Why did you create that article? Aecis^Brievenbus 13:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like you to explain your last post above here, and to explain the creation of those two articles. Fram (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, okay, calm down - heaven's above! It's really not that important. If Rijk Van Roog is a hoax then big deal. Delete it and get it over with. Who cares why Gazh created it. He did. So what? Delete it. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fram stop playin th' dictayta, stop playin mr reet-wing, there's nee secret ansa, dinnit werry if ye dinnit undastand, ye not meant te ennyway. Et's above en beyon many not frem these lans. ;) Gazh (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Donoghue

Hi, i've added a infobox and a reference, so far and i'll be trying to do more, and i'll have a go at the Richard Ord page.--Sunderland06 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, do you thinks i should put Gavin Donoghue in for a peer review.--Sunderland06 18:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Gan on then i'll put it in for a peer review.Thanks.--Sunderland06 14:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, do you know where you got the information on Gavin Donoghue, especially the part where it says about DDSL, as i need it for citations.Thanks.--Sunderland06 (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We'll probablys have to skip that bit of the article then, the DDSL part.Thanks.Sunderland06 11:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

invatation

for a fellow mackem to join the new sunderland football wiki. 217.43.59.195 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

And a very merry christmas to you, and indeed a very happy new year. Sunderland06  19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Donoghue

Hi can you tell me where you got the info about Gavin on this section here, and give me the website because they need references. And do you have a reference for this bit, Donoghue combines very good aerial ability with a classic approach to playing central defence. His reading, patience, and excellent long range passing being his best assets., or is it just your own view.  Sunderland06  17:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All i need is for you to give me the name of the aricle about Gavin Donoghue and what date it was released, that is if you can find the programme, is there a quicker way i can get in touch with you.  Sunderland06  21:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you got MSN so i can contact you easier.  Sunderland06  22:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No i haven't mate, i'd give you my email but i'm sketchy about posting it here, if you want to give me yours i'll send you an email though, unless you can think or summat else. Gazh (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

DUNNIT

I know i've left you an email, but i didn't know where you would get through to me quicker, so i just want to ask if you have that programme yet. Thanks.  Sunderland06  13:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ghost (producer)

An editor has nominated Ghost (producer), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost (producer) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dubbledge

An editor has nominated Dubbledge, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubbledge and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:

I've got decent knowledge about certain things, but I wouldn't go any further than that. Fire away though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I get what you're after, and I'll respond as best I can.

• British would be south of the Forth, Pictish north of the Forth. All Celtic elements identified in the Pictish area that are different from Gaelic are almost exactly like British; therefore, Pictish is a form of British. The only period we have good info for before the 12th century is the late 600s/early 700s; in this era, in the age of Adomnan and Bede, the Scoti and the Picti are said to be divided from each other by the Dorsum Britanniae, a Latin translation of Druim Alban ("Spine of Britain", "Spine of Scotland", i.e. the mountains between Argyll/Wester Ross and the rest of Scotland). Thus, it is assumed, Gaelic was west of that, Pictish east of it, and British south of it. English is an intrusive element that comes in in the 7th century; its spread can't be definitely traced, but by the 12th century it was the language of the modern Lothian and Scottish Borders council areas. In the 12th century, Gaelic was the language of between 80% and 90% of the Scottish landmass, spoken north of the Forth (with the exception of the Caithness-Sutherland coast), west of the Nith and Clyde (essentially Dumfries and Galloway, Ayrshire and Dumbartonshire); British may have surived in Nithsdale, Annandale, Clydesale, and Teviotdale, but English and Gaelic were spoken in these areas too. It's very important to remember the dates c. 700 and c. 1100, because anything anyone claims about any date before or between is just guessing.

• Gaelic, Pictish and British are all Celtic and may not have been meaningfully different on the ground by 700, we don't have enough evidence. One recent (re-)suggestion about Pictish is that it just became identified as Gaelic between 700 and 1100 by a process of dialect reconvergence, like Scots with English was the cited parallel. At any rate, it is very misleading to see Scotland divided cooly between four languages. Only one language - English - was completely different.

• Eyemouth, it is true, has no attested history of Gaelic speech, and almost certainly it was never spoken there except by a few immigrant landlords (and even that's prolly not the case because it lies in comital, not royal, territory). It lies just a few miles from Bamburgh, the centre of the earldom of Northumbria/Northumberland/Bernicia, and has been English for at least 1300 years since the Britons there were acculturated/conquered/whatever. Until the Wars of Independence, the inhabitants of Eyemouth would have thought it odd to be called "Scottish", and would happily and innocently referred to themselves as "English". But that area has been part of Scotland for 8 centuries, so the history of the exact area is to some extent secondary to the nation as a whole; people move around after all.

• Scotland was never formed compositionally. The Kingdom of Alba took over the English speaking area long after its identity and ideology were established; Scotland actually means "Gaelic-speaking territory"; this might seem odd, but you'll understand if you know that "Scotland" is an English exonym and referred to the land north of the Forth until the end of the 13th century, which was entirely Gaelic speaking as far as the post-900 English were concerned. That's one of the reasons many Scots identify with Gaelic; the other is that since the 14th century after the processes of integration of conquered English and immigrant English (north of the Forth, etc), and about the time English became the main language of the Lowlands and Scottish government, Scots just assumed that they used to speak Gaelic. No-one in the 15th century would have understood either that the south-east wasn't always part of Scotland. So until the rise of Teutonism in the 18th century, that was the way things were seen. Thirdly, Gaelic is Scotland's only surviving non-English language, so it is the only real source of Scottish linguistic distinctiveness. No-one except a few intellectuals view Scots that way; that's just the way it is.

Anyways, hope that helps. Can't continue this, because I'm going away for a while, but I'll be back at some point. Regards,Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry to keep bugging you about this but have you found the programme with the info for Gavin Donoghue, I have just created the Donoghue article in my userspace here. Thanks.  Sunderland06  23:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No mate, i can't find it. sorry. Gazh (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn, can you remember the date, opponent, anything will do. Sunderland06 (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Consett or Bishop Auckland i think. Gazh (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you can't get any more info, and was that a reserve match? Sunderland06 (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Pre season friendly, mostly reserves played i think. Gazh (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Berwick-upon-Tweed. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please STOP removing sourced material without consensus. Take it to the talk page if you disagree with it. --Rodhullandemu 20:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

See your talkpage. Gazh (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Oops." - I was looking at the latest changes to Berwick-upon-Tweed and accidentally hit the revert button when I meant to hit ...? (Actually I have no idea why I clicked the mouse.) Sorry about that. I've restored the change. -- Tcncv (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Matt Holmes

Matty Holmes - There you are. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: John Cogger

Hey, I'm afraid he doesn't meet the notability criteria for WP:ATHLETE as he has not made a professional appearance in the Football League, they don't count youth appearances as notable so it won't be able to be created just yet. Looks like Sunderland are becoming the new Tottenham ;) Sunderland06 (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nathan Luscombe

Yeah him, and also possibly Michael Liddle. As long as they've played in the premier league, or a cup match. Sunderland06 (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and also, you could have a look through User:Sunderland06/Players and expand the articles with me, to find information, look at the stat cat profile for when they made their debut and how many total league appearances and goals they made. Alos looking up their A Love Supreme profile would be great. If you want you could work from the bottom and putt a note on the User:Sunderland06/Players page that it was you that expanded. This will eventually come in to help the List of Sunderland A.F.C. players to reach featured list status. You obviously don't have to help, but it would be a great favor to me and a reduction of a huge work load. If you have any questions about it just ask. Thanks mate. Bring on the Geordies! Sunderland06 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Krondon

A tag has been placed on Krondon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dialect (hip hop)

A tag has been placed on Dialect (hip hop) 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 band or musician, 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Toddst1 (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Northern dialects

Hi. I've noticed some of your comments on the Northern England article as regards dialect. Some of the dialects in the northern half of Yorkshire are virtually identical to Durham, and can be considered "Northern". Hear this short recording for example. The dialect border between true Northern and Midland speech has moved north over the last 50 years though. For example, I doubt that you would hear anyone say "down" as "doon" in York or Hull anymore, but this can still be heard in Whitby, Northallerton, etc. Yorkshire is a huge county, and the north of the county sounds very different to the south. It's just that the media concentrates on accents from the urban areas of Yorkshire, which are almost all in the Midland-sounding zone. Epa101 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Verb T

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Verb T 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 band or musician, 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, you can place a request here. STATic message me! 15:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk: Barton Keys

You're probably not gonna believe this, but the user above wrote an article on YNR Productions - alas up RIGHT NOW for speedy deletion - at the same time you wrote one about their boy Verb T (just been offed). How about that? Anyway, I left him a note about how you have the same interests. Hope you don't mind but as it must be dispiriting to get articles speedied, I thought maybe if you pooled your talents, who knows? Watch it, though - people are so suspicious around here, you probably wouldn't believe that either! Plutonium27 (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Verbs With a Vengeance

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Verbs With a Vengeance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

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, you can place a request here. Stryn (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Verb T for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Verb T 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/Verb T 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Text Offenders for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Text Offenders 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/Text Offenders 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. Beerest355 Talk 00:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Verb T for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Verb T 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/Verb T (2nd nomination) 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. TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 12:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Arton Beleci

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Arton Beleci 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Munchies (song)

The article Munchies (song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Richhoncho (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Sean Landless for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sean Landless 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/Sean Landless until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Wgolf (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Flag of Wearside.svg.JPG

The file File:Flag of Wearside.svg.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)