Jump to content

User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is archived every month (if I remember). The older pages are indexed at User talk:NawlinWiki/Archives.

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~).

Wondering why your article was speedily deleted? Check this list first.

Do you want to move a page that I've move-protected? Discuss the move first on the article's talk page. If there's a consensus for the move, let me know and I'll unlock the page.

Please add all comments at the bottom of the page (or I may not be able to find them).

_________________________________________________________

Hi. sorry pressed save by mistake, still making page. please don't delete shawco entry. go back and groom fluffy rather. cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollymcgurk (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Bacher

Hey NawlinWiki, could you please userfy C. J. Bacher (the version before its first deletion on June 27, 2009) to my userspace? Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfying a DRV-failed article

Please have a look at the bottom of my talk page and an exchange with User:7shaquan about Ciara Bravo. Although I think the chances of this becoming a useful article are about a billion to one against, I took the deleted content and placed it into a sandbox page. (It's failed AfD, DRV and been SALTed so far.) I also laid out the only possible path to get this article into mainspace, which as far as I know involves you as the last deleting admin. My apologies if I've created unnecessary work for you. Frankly, I think we have now given this topic about as much time as it warrants and I have been clear that my opinion is that he must do the work on his own. I understand the policy is that he has to request your permission before returning to DRV but you can handle this however you wish. I'll be keeping an eye on this sandbox page for potential deletion, if it's abandoned. If you have any questions or problems, I am of course at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

You've got one. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got another one. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 05:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Carlos Alberto Mota#Looking_for_help

Hi. Would you mind stopping by the subject section and sharing your input there? If the work has sufficient merit, would you mind userfying the original work? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 21:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good block of BubbaahKinns

I saw you blocked this user after they made two attack pages. I personally think (a) a block for making two attack pages might have been overkill, and (b) there's no kill like overkill. Good block! (Would you like to become a WikiDalek?) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • My personal rule is that a second attack page after an attack warning = permanent block. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hello,

I'm trying to understand why the DefenseWeb Technologies page was rejected.

I have followed the guidelines put forth by Wikipedia, and find that what I submitted is very similar in scope to other company pages (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RightNow as an example).

Can you help me understand this so that I can get this article accepted?

Thanks

MegMegdavis00 (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The RightNow article includes independent sources that support the company's notability (including its listing on NASDAQ). The sources cited in the DefenseWeb article appear to be PR releases, one of which carries the byline of a DefenseWeb officer. See WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyBuilder - remove notability notice

Hi there, Happy Friday! Just wanted to let you know, additional articles have been added to validate the MyBuilder article. Please see references [2]from lovemoney & [4]the Daily Mail. Is it possible to have the alert notice removed? Many thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RKruh (talk • contribs) 09:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC) --RKruh (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Tourist Development Corporation (ITDC)

hi, I was planning to create a new page on Indian Tourist Development Corporation (ITDC) aka Ashok Group of hotels but noticed that you have deleted a page named ITDC... so i was just checking if it was some other itdc or you thought ITDC is not important enough to be included in Wikipedia.. [[User:imdabs|Amit Амит अमित ਅਮਿਤ]] ([[User talk:imdabs|talk]]) (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page I deleted was a copyright violation - it was cut and pasted from the ITDC website. Feel free to write an article in your own words. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Turkmens

A spam link has been added on related article. It is in the list of MWiki spam on Turkish Wikipedia. Regards--CnkALTDS (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Related

Hello NawlinWiki, First of all sorry to ask again this question, I do that because I did not get an answer and this topic has been archived.If I may I would like to ask you advice about the way to follow to upload an image of famous person that have an article on Wikipedia. In fact I am going to ask him to allow me to use one of his photgrapies on Wikipedia. I know that when he will OK my request I will have to submit a ticket but I do not know the process to follow. Thank you for any explanation you can give me. --Bosonz0 (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renpet the sci-fi novel

Thank you, I was just going to AfD it. De728631 (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with an edit filter problem

I can't figure out what caused this editor to set off the filter. None of the watch words seem to appear in either the lines he added or the whole article before or after. Am I reading the code wrong? Either way, this filter has been set off twice in the past few days, and is very difficult to work with because even false positives are still often controversial edits that I'd be hesitant to add myself. —Soap— 01:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out the problem. Send me an email if you want a copy of my explanation. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I should have looked around some more... Shirik explained the problem exactly at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#Filter 17. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TUTT (Linguistics)

Why have you deleted this article on Time of Utterance? It's a valid linguistic term used in a lot of academic writing? --Drew.ward (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK nevermind I just looked and it's still there. I'm confused, what's going on with it? I got a notice on my watchlist that it had been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew.ward (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth talk page

Why was the talk page for Archduchess Elisabeth of Austria (1922–1993) deleted? It says that the author requested it. Who was the author? (because I wrote the article). Just wondering, thanks. Ruby2010 (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite semi-protection of Christopher Columbus

I'm just wondering why this is semi-protected indefinitely, there didn't seem to be much vandalism at the time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK fair enough. Sorry for not reading the log correctly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Cereal Day

You deleted this as "Expired PROD, concern was: Violates WP:MADEUP and WP:CRYSTAL." but if I read the history correctly, it was created only today so the prod can hardly be expired. it also had an (invalid) speedy tag, which i was about to remove when you deleted it. Plese reconsider this one. DES (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis hoax

That "Vanatoru" tennis hoax appeared again. Can you take care of it? Thanks in advance (Gabinho (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Now radio

You deleted this under WP:CSD#A1 "No context". The deleted article said, in part "It is an Edmontonian Radio Station. Edmonton, AB. in Canada." A google on "Now radio" Edmonton finds several hits. I think this was enough context for anyone interested to learn what the article was about and where to look for information to improve the article. I suggest that this was an unwise speedy. However, one of the hits is CIAB-FM which seems to be a better article on the same topic. i am going to recreate Now radio as a redirect. Please be careful with speedys though. DES (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting this edit on my user talk page. I've been harassed several times by this particular IP user. Cheers -petiatil »user»speak 06:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Deletion

Dear NawlinWiki,

I have published an article in the searchengines list which was deleted in october2009, could you please have a look on the search engine http://www.miiner.com and let us know what we are doing wrong here.

Any response from your side would be highly appreciated regarding this matter.

Best Regards,

Moeenkhurshid (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Moeen Khurshid.[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reverting an Edit on my Talk Page. It is much appreciated. Thanks Floul1 | My Talkpage | Vandalise Here 15:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IllusionalForce

I just saw in the history of the Science Reference Desk that you reverted and blocked this user, citing abuse of multiple accounts. Could you point out to me why you believe this is a sock? He seems to only have two edits under this account, and neither is problamatic. In fact, the edit you reverted [1] was a response to a request for clarification from another editor (if he shouldn't be here, we may as well nuke the whole thread, although at this point others have given good faith answers to a reasonable question). Thank You. Buddy431 (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was this just based on the behavior? Because honostly, it looks different than the ones Jpgordon blocked: most significantly, it was created several days after all of the other accounts were created and blocked. The question also had a bit more context then the others, and he did respond when asked for clarification. I suppose it's suspicious that he creates an account and the first thing he does is go to the reference desk, but I'm not seeing much that indicates that this is the Av-Lav troll in particular. Buddy431 (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was just based on behavior (the really goofy question to the ref desk), but I will unblock and we'll see what happens. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Buddy431 (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 301

I saw you made this filter to stop blu aardvark, but I'll be surprised if it gets many hits, see [2], almost all of those are blu aardvark, some 350ish, all with talk page and email removed, thats all the ones tagged as confirmed or suspected plus another hundred or so i found in the new page log. Considering he claimed to have something like 100-175 socks I'll be surprised if he has enough left to make the filter worth while (and its fun to imagine him going through his list for hours seeing block notice after block notice). However, it might be worth changing/adapting the filter for another unblock troll, the abominable wiki troll has started making unblock requests with old socks that include graphic images. I blocked all the ones tagged but there are probably more. --Jac16888Talk 16:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super size me

Would you mind explaining what's just happened? I saw this come up on my watchlist - I'm confused as to why you deleted it then restored it after vandalism, rather than just moving it back. Just for interest's sake, if you have time! CheesyBiscuit (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removed vandalism in an edit summary - deleted one edit. Page had already been moved back. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:194.154.22.37

Just to be clear. I reported this IP thinking that the level 4 warning was for today, but it was from March 12, 2009. Regards, PDCook (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This IP has a huge history of abuse and started vandalizing on the very day that its last 1 year block expired. I'm leaving my block in place. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the better, no doubt. Thanks for all your hard work. PDCook (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation

Hi.

Thank you very much for helping to review articles for creation, but I have one request: When you change the status of an article, to decline it or put it on hold, please leave the rest of the template with the date information etc. This information is used by a bot, an automated process.

For example here - instead, you should have put; 

{{AFC submission|d|bio|ts=20100313122318|u=194.36.160.2|ns=5}} <!--- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. --->

Once again, thanks for helping out - please do review more. If you need more help with this, ask on my own talk page, or talk to other reviewers with this link. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  21:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longer block required?

Hi~! The block log of this particular IP 218.188.3.66 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) due to his persistent disruptive editing pattern (used by a registered user → Scania N113 (talk · contribs) ←) is noted by me on several occasions and his latest obnoxious edit on his own talk page and on User talk:Denniss seem to be pointing towards such another such repeat of problem, as well as having a fascination/fixation with harassment of another editor here on Wikipedia. Note also that User:Scania N113 had just came out from a one month block ending 28 February 2010. Thoughts? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 05:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is asking after you...

See Wikipedia:Help_desk#Can.27t_post_a_question_to_user:nawlinwiki. You may want to initiate a discussion on the OPs talk page to see what they want. --Jayron32 20:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Hi can you please check out my sandbox and provide your feedback? Thanks! Sandbox Michellecatin (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please help with deleted page

I created an article about The Forgotten International through Arcticle Wizard. I moved it today and it was immediately deleted probably because it doesn't meet the notability criteria. I'm not sure what was the exact violation or where should I make changes. I'm sure that information about TFI is useful to the public since it's a non-profit fighting to alleviate poverty. Please advise whether I can receive the content of the article somehow since I lost it completely and what changes are needed so that it's not deleted next time. Thank you for your help in advance. pls email to : kristina.pomothyova@gmail.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theforgottenintl (talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Article

Hi. I have created an article quite a while ago named enVision, which is one of the most popular software systems in document management market in my country. We have been forwarding a lot of people seeking for information to Wikipedia pages; where we used to share information. Today, we have been informed by a few people that the article is no longer available. May I ask the reason for deleting it? I claim that the article deserved to be published since it is searched by people in my country quite frequently, even if it might not be a Microsoft product. I kindly request your reconsideration about deleting the article and suggest recovering it for the reasons explained above. With my best regards. Alpcos (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)alpcos[reply]

Barnstar

I don't think you noticed the barnstar I gave you. I put it right with your collection of barnstars instead of on your talk page, so you might not have noticed it. Savie Kumara (and Nini Kastoa) 21:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rachasty is back!

Hi NawlinWiki. I noticed on User talk:Historyrekishi that you have deleted Rachasty before and warned the author. Just letting you know that he/she has recreated the article again. I checked wiki-ja and found that the Japanese version is being proposed for deletion, too. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes grotto

You deleted this article. By the way, you did this immediately, without the courtesy notifying me or giving me a chance to save the content (which was negligible in this case, as it happens).

You said "Not enough context to identify article's subject". I think there was sufficient context for an initial stub; however that's not my main point.

I looked up the subject as I found a reference to a church in Belgium having a "Lourdes grotto"; this puzzled me, as a Lourdes grotto, rather THE Lourdes grotto, is at Lourdes, only. I found that there are quite a lot of Catholic "Lourdes grottos" in various parts of the world; presumably they are essentially copies of the original; I gave up counting after 13 Wikipedia instances of the phrase "Lourdes grotto" unassociated with Lourdes.

This establishes the NEED for an article (possibly a dictionary/Wiktionary article rather than Wikipedia, though you didn't suggest this. At present there is no such entry in Wiktionary). What I actually wrote was absolutely bare-bones, and was intended as a start to be built on by somebody who knows more—aka a stub—but does explain the phrase; if the article hadn't been deleted I'd have added some instances (in my opinion it needs an explanation, not just a disambiguation list).

Incidentally, I have no slightest wish to establish or favour the idea of such grottoes, just to explain what appears to be a fairly common institution—I am not promoting, nor do I even hold, a point of view in favour.

So if you could reinstate the stub, I'll add a few examples to it, and maybe ask for the help of an expert in the subject.Pol098 (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for helping to revert the massive flood of 4chan vandalism on my userpage. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 12:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie!

Excirial has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

The Thing That Should Not Be has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I couldn't resist either ;) The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:GovGuru

has replied on his talk page because yours is semi'd. In any case, the company he works for is asked by the county to host the county's maps and I think they could be added if the "hosted by XXX" is changed to just "from OGI", because it's technically the "official" appraisal map for the county.  fetchcomms☛ 17:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think even a "from OGI" is appropriate, but I've emailed the user and said basically what you just said. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think he got that from the other link that said "hosted by" something-or-other, and it probably isn't the best idea either, so I've told him if he wants to remove that from the other links, he can.  fetchcomms☛ 18:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Legal Nurse Consulant

Sorry for the undos/redos on the Legal Nurse Consultant page (and the "cookies" edit). I believe the NYTimes is considered a reliable source regarding Vickie Milazzo. She is considered the person who created the legal nurse consulting nursing specialty. There are no outside links to any advertising, etc. and strictly a link to the NYTimes. I believe this should pass a "sniff test" and pass as a historical reference. Let me know if there is anything I can/should do to correct this to keep the reference. I have not linked to anything that would go directly to Ms. Milazzo's website, etc. and have only linked in the footnote. Again, if there's something more appropriate to do, I'd be happy to follow all posted rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomZiemba (talk • contribs)


I've reviewed it - the sentence that she "created the profession" was in the photo caption that accompanied the original article. The article as shown states that she "pioneered the field." Would a sentence to the effect of "Vickie Milazzo pioneered the field in 1982." be acceptable? TomZiemba (talk)Tom Ziemba —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Fess Parker...

...does not appear to actually be in semi-protection right now. However, I don't think there are any big concerns with it right now either. I had a minor good-faith dispute with an IP about one detail, and we reached a compromise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed PROD from Richard E. Meyer

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Richard E. Meyer, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!.

Although this article is not written well in terms of WP guidelines, I don't believe it needs deletion, but instead needs improvement. A quick source search reveals that this person is most likely notable, so that's not the issue. Additionally, this was written by a new editor whom I will be giving some improvement advice shortly.--Mike Cline (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Estavillo

I believe our boy may also be a sockpuppeteer; take a look at the edit history of User:Lawbloggerz and IP 76.195.210.152, and compare them to User:Law&gaming! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Eraserheads albums

I have nominated Category:Eraserheads albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:The Eraserheads albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Bled (Film)

Hello NawlinWiki, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Bled (Film) has been removed. It was removed by Pantera5FDP with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Pantera5FDP before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kol Ami of Frederick

I am contacting you regarding the article Kol Ami of Frederick that you recently deleted. Before I go to deletion review, I am requesting it be restored directly.

The article had a contested PROD, so it should not have been speedy deleted. Had I known it was up for speedy deletion, I would have contested that too, which I can do, since I did not create it. I would NOT mind it being discussed at Afd, but I would prefer it being sent to Afd, where the article could be viewed and improved during the discussion. Xyz7890 (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If an article is eligible for speedy deletion, I don't think it matters that someone put a prod tag on it instead. In this case, there was absolutely nothing in the article that asserted that this congregation was notable per WP:ORG. There are thousands upon thousands of individual churches and synagogues in the world. Many people write articles about them, and most are speedily deleted -- the ones that aren't usually assert some kind of historic significance. What is it about this synagogue that meets any of the notability criteria of WP:ORG? NawlinWiki (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:CSD guidelines, The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. I was NOT the creator; I only had it on my watchlist because I made a minor edit on it one time. Regardless of notability, as the non-creator, it is my right to contest any prod of speedy tag, which would thereby require it to be sent to afd. That is POLICY. What I am requesting is that it get restored, and if need be, *I* will make the afd proposal myself, though I would first look into improving it. Xyz7890 (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:ThePolarity

Hi, NawlinWiki. Would you block ThePolarity (talk · contribs) for page-move vandalism? The admins at AIV do not appear familiar with this type of vandalism. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection needed

Hi, looking at my watchlist, you've reverted some vandalism on pages I've reverting tonight. Atm, I'm getting absolutely battered by vandals and no-one is helping despite reports at WP:RPP. As you are an admin, could you please protect UFC Live: Vera vs. Jones, Gabriel Gonzaga, Junior dos Santos, Cheick Kongo, Paul Buentello and Alessio Sakara please. I realise that's a lot of work, but I'm really struggling right now. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Semi'd the UFC Live article. I'm not really seeing so much vandalism on the others that a semi would be needed. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the first, but are you serious? We're getting battered by vandalism. Has also started on Brandon Vera and Jon Jones (fighter) too now. Please protect it because this is ridiculous. @Paralympiakos (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked a couple of the IPs that seem to be causing the most trouble. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax audit under section 44AB of Indian Income Tax Act,1961

I was checking the recent changes log and found this. I don't think this is where Vishnu1.218 meant for this to go. And I don't think AfD pages fall under CSD. Whispering 11:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Additional Feedback

Thanks for your feedback. I made additional edits, hopefully, I was able to tone down some of the language. Can you please take a look and let me know if this now works? SandboxMichellecatin (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baked barney

Without a doubt. The obsession with Jewish critics of Israel, the content of the edits, the names used, and the frequent citations of Steven Plaut are all characteristic of Runtshit. See also User:Truthprofessor. You may draw your own further conclusions from this vandal's editing behaviour. I will tag all of these with Runtshit suspect tag. RolandR (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure of ShaneDawsonTV

Hi there! While I fully support ShaneDawsonTV being closed as a speedy delete, it's generally considered not appropriate to close your own AfD. In future could you take the time to flag down an uninvolved admin to do the close, so as to preserve the integrity of the process? Thank you. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure. My thought was that I would have speedied this in the first place had I been aware of the previous AFD. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hank glaros (talk · contribs)

I saw you just blocked this user. You might want to look at the deleted contribs of the users listed @ Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zenny101 to see of it quacks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!!!!! Your awesome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planedriver27 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

To join the secret cabal follow me!

Whack!

You have been trouted for: Being the best mod ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planedriver27 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

working with men

Hi,

I've amended the content on the user page as you suggested. Still getting my head round formatting but if you can give me some pointers on whether the content is now on track it would be appreciated.

Thanks Webnaut (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Web development life cycle

Hi, I think this article should be deleted as its a duplicate of Systems Development Life Cycle. and should be replaced by a redirect :-) thank you MaenK.A.Talk 12:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working With Men

I see, so if I source more external sources then I stand in better stead? Please note, the first reference to the fatherhood institute is an external reference, they are unconnected to WWM. I'll amend and let you know. Thanks for your help. Webnaut (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Newton

Hi. You semi-protected this article in October 2008. Do you still think that's needed? Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll try unprotecting, let's see what happens. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You were right and I was wrong. The page has been vandalized about every two hours since you unprotected it. Sorry to waste your time. I had no idea the page would be such a target. Maurreen (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:VictimsWife

Can you look at his latest contribs. This user is inputting NPOV informaiton. I can no longer ocntinue reverting to not break 3rr. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


41 Club

You have deleted this article within a few hours of me putting it up. Had you asked, I would have explained to you that 41 Club is a social networking and charitable group, and part of the Round Table family of clubs, and that I am one of the PR and Media officers for Round Table.

Membership of our clubs is not as high as it once was, and that therefore we are keen to get as much information out there about us as possible. This includes each club having its own web presence, and (hopefully) media like Wikipedia.

Sadly, round Table and 41 Club do not have lots of money to pay ghost writers to write all this stuff for us. We all do it for free in our own time. We do therefore reproduce the same material from site to site to get the word out. For example, the material you got from St Albans 41 Club's website, I actually got from our national 41 Club website

I have modelled our 41 Club page on our Round Table page, so don't understand what the problem is?

What do I need to do to get our page restored?

Kind regards ~~Trevor Durham~~ Press & Media Officer Cardiff Round Table cardiffroundtable@yahoo.co.uk


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevordurham (talk • contribs) 07:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected talk page

Hi,

Arising from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 30 I noticed your talk page is indefinitely semi-protected. I haven't gone and looked for a history of vandalism, but would you consider either unprotecting it or setting up a subpage for IPs and new editors who want to contact you? Stifle (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working With Men

Hi ... I've included a few more external references to the charity, mainly from bodies who have funded or piloted work done by the charity. Would you mind taking a look to see if I'm more on track? Thanks! Webnaut (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWM

Hi, Thanks for the pointers, I'll see if I can source some. Are parliamentary bodies sufficient? If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherhood_Institute, who are a similar organisation they only cite two verifiable sources, both parliamentary, not news sources. Does this constitute a web source which is independant? Thanks for your help. Webnaut (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Uw-vandalism1

Was the full protection of {{Uw-vandalism1}} really necessary? There has been only one instance of vandalism in the past three months, and it's not really a high risk template anyway since it's always transcluded. Any chance it could be unprotected at least for autoconfirmed users? Laurent (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ashleynn

I've watched AshleyNN (talk · contribs) for a while. Why does your block notice say "abusing multiple accounts"? tedder (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. That's the missing bit of information. Thanks. tedder (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWM

Hi ... I've sourced some links from Peer publications, a news source, and some House of Commons notes on one of the charitys projects. I've put them as links so far under 'references' if you'd like to look at them. I'll write up the project they reference and link to them from that paragraph. Sorry for the hand-holding, but do you think I'm on the right track? Thanks! Webnaut (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MC-Input.com

You deleted the new article for MC-Input.com - this is a real business not just a website - this action makes no sense - please advise and let me know. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by RossMorgan (talk • contribs) 23:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poyel Music Entertainment

You deleted the new article for Poyel Music Entertainment - this is a real business www.poyelmusic.com - this action makes no sense - please advise and let me know. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by RossMorgan (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Joedames

Care to have a word with this chap? He doesn't seem to get it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UniFocus page

This page was deleted but while it is about a company there are MANY pages just like it all over Wikipedia that just state the company and what they do. I can find many examples if needed. What is the process for disputing this deletion? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UniFocus I realize the "reasoning" behind the deletion but it's not carried out consistently at all. This page was every bit as notable as many others to the 75 employees that work at the company. If there is something we can write on the page to make it more suitable - please let me know. SteveFarina (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why this reversion?

Can you explain what's going on here? There seems to be an editor denying the village was ethnically cleansed in the lead contrary to what it says in the body, and determined to remove all the background of how the villagers lived. 80.40.225.228 (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Ethnic cleansing" is a provocative term, and there is at least one established editor besides the blocked sockpuppets who opposes the change. I would suggest you discuss this on the article talk page and see if you can work out a compromise version. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lighten up

Have a laugh and just enjoy it. The main page is full of nonsensical/misleading prankery today too. — BQZip01 — talk 04:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you'd just let it run, I think it would have been a lot more fun. I was planning multiple oppose votes too. — BQZip01 — talk 04:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales

I am not sure that re-opening the AfD as a joke is a good idea. A new editor came to the article tonight. She has mostly contribs to one article that was nominated for an AfD that I helped save. Well, she started modifying the dates on his article which go contrary to Jimbo's expressed statement. Now another user has followed and done the same. I have made reverts but don't want it to appear I am edit-warring. I did not issue a warning on the first change as I viewed it as a good faith edit. Then the new user re-editted the article again. I reverted and issued her a warning. She continued to revert and I issued another warning along with 3RR advice. She had the nerve to put a 3RR non-substituted warning on my talkpage. I'd be willing to bet that his DOB will be edit-warred over if the AfD is opened as a joke. What do you think? Morenooso (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second user just issued me a 3RR warning. See this diff. I am not laughing at all. --Morenooso (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Contributions history is pretty clear. I think you have seen my edits, reverts and Speedy Delete nominations. If you feel the 3RR is justified, please block me for 10 hours and pull my Rollback rights as a sign to me that I am not a good Page Patroller. This really disheartens me. --Morenooso (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWM

Hi ... Could you take a look at the article again please? There are now references from peer groups, a parlimentary link, and a link from a local newspaper. Thanks Webnaut (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NawlinWiki/Archive_43&oldid=1143540586"