User talk:Amaury/2009/April

2009 Archive Index: January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Amaury. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Editor review 1

Related discussion: Your request for rollback

I went back to February this time because I had already glanced through all of your March edits. This may mean that you've already learned from any mistakes that I point out though. I'll try not to point out too much that I can recall that you've already discussed with someone, but I'm sure that I'll miss a conversation and point some stuff out again anyway. If there are any specific edits you want me to comment on, feel free to post them and I will.

First, it's great how you and The Cool Kat have put the past aside and hold no grudges. That shows maturity on both of your parts.
I saw a lot of good reverts in this month as well. In most of the bad reverts I saw, the other editor left a valid edit summary, so just remember what we discussed about that, and you'll do great.
It looks like you did a nice job of placing stub templates to articles. The templates are usually put at the bottom of the article, which you've probably figured out now anyway, but that's not a big deal at all.
I saw a few times where an editor removed warnings from their talk page, and you reverted them to restore the warnings. Per WP:BLANKING, editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page and should not be reverted when they do. Removing the warning is an acknowledgment of having read it.
As I'm sure you learned, when you add main article links to character articles like you did here, there really should be an article there, not just a redirect :)
Nice self-revert here. Linking headings is against the MOS, but you must've caught this yourself as I didn't see a message. Nice job.
There were a couple of civility issues that I saw during the AfD, but that appears to have been stress/bad mood more than anything since it wasn't a problem before and hasn't been since, so no major worries there. Everyone has bad days :)
Small typographical/grammar fixes are often overlooked, but very important nonetheless. I saw you make several of these fixes that were good, especially ones like its/it's. Those often get confused or overlooked, so nice job catching them. Just when doing these, try to be mindful of WP:ENGVAR and make sure that it isn't a spelling difference instead. A lot of the spelling differences deal with -OR (US) and -OUR (UK) and -IZE (US) and -ISE (UK), so if you see these, try to think twice before correcting. I didn't see you do this any more, but I noticed this move request where you had mistaken a spelling difference for a misspelling. Just try to keep this in the back of your mind.
You should also be careful about altering other people's talk page comments, even if it is just to correct spelling or grammar. It doesn't bother me, but it is generally considered bad practice and other people might get upset if you edited their comments.

I think that's all I got. Unfortunately, I can't comment too much on a lot of your edits to Pokemon and related subjects. I'm not much of a fiction editor and don't know anything about that particular subject, but most of those edits look reasonable to me. Hope it helps. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 23:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's start a weekly check-up on my edits (good or bad). We'll do it every Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday (depends). We'll do it today for this week (Thursday). - Amaury (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to do that. I won't have much time for the rest of this week, but I glanced through your contibs from the last few days and didn't see anything that really concerned me. I did notice that you reverted in the sandbox a couple of times, which I wouldn't really recommend, but if you do revert because they removed the heading, instead of leaving a vandalism template on their talk page, you should leave a {{uw-sandbox}} notice. The only thing that really caught my eye were a couple of speedy deletion requests [1] [2]. One was a song by a notable musician and the other a personality on a notable game show. Claiming to be a part of something notable or being by someone notable is itself a claim to notability. This doesn't necessarily mean that the articles shouldn't be deleted, just not speedy deleted. In situations like those, if you don't feel that the article meets the appropriate notability criteria, you should try WP:PROD or WP:AfD. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How to have a page in your userspace deleted

Just add {{db-author}} or {{db-user}} to the page. No need to MFD or whatever. //roux 18:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just testing Twinkle with my sandbox, but it's somehow taking me to other pages. I apologize. - Amaury (Contributions) (Talk) 18:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the blame on that one. I didn't explain that it would do all of the steps for you if you nominated something for deletion. When you XfD something, it will create the deletion discussion page and transclude it to the appropriate place. If you request protection, it will automatically post it and WP:RFPP, and if you use ARV, it'll automatically place it at WP:AIV. If you click unlink, it'll automatically remove all of the links on other pages to the place where you clicked it. Sorry 'bout that. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. :) - Amaury (Contributions) (Talk) 18:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor review 2

Related discussions: Your request for rollback • Editor review 1

Hello again. Sorry to come back with more concerns, but I'm afraid that if you continue making some of the reverts that you have been, you may lose access to Twinkle and also hurt your chances of getting rollback in the near future. I glanced through a few of your reverts over the past couple of days, and I saw a few that concerned me.

This revert to Never Ending Tour certainly didn't look like vandalism to me. In fact, the original edit looks correct. It removed a statement that the Roundhouse issued. This isn't the place for them to be releasing statements, and as such, I went back and removed it.
I am curious as to why you made this revert to DADIU. The original author appeared to be finished editing it for the time being and removed the tag. I don't see why you would reinsert it unless you were planning on editing it, which doesn't appear to be the case.
I saw a few "Reverted good-faith edits by..." without any additional explanation. Just like before, anytime you revert a good faith edit, you should explain why. The default edit summary is not sufficient because it doesn't explain anything.
These two reverts [3] [4] to Gopal Khanna also concern me. The editor appears to be making a good-faith attempt to expand the article. It's fairly obvious that they aren't extremely familiar with how to edit here. They did add a comment that doesn't belong in article space, but the editor probably deserves a nice welcome and help instead of being called a vandal.
I also noticed that you made a few vandalism reverts to the WP:SANDBOX and issued warnings. Since the template we use for warning vandals requests them to use the sandbox, it doesn't really make sense to revert it when they do what we ask. There are some times when it may be appropriate to revert in the sandbox, but usually just extreme cases like when someone starts posting someone's personal information or such.
Not reverts, but I want to remind you something about speedy deletions. Articles do not have to establish notability to survive A7 speedy deletion, it just has to assert it. If the article is about a song made by a big name musician, then that asserts notability. Generally, if the article provides any third party sources, then it is very unlikely to be deleted. Also, unless the page is blatant vandalism, a copyvio, or attack page, you really should give the author some time before requesting speedy deletion. I saw a lot that you tagged within a few minutes of creation. You really should give at least 15 minutes to allow the author a few minutes to work on it. This is a large problem here with a lot of New Page Patrollers (I used to be guilty of it myself).

Patrolling pages from the back of the unpatrolled page list is the best way to avoid this&'mdash;stuff that's 30 days old that hasn't been expanded is fair game. Bongo matic 23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a fairly common trend in a lot of your mistakes. A lot of these were previously reverted by someone else. Remember, the other editor who reverted may well have made a mistake. This could also get you involved in edit wars that you probably don't need to get involved in (edit wars are bad, discussion is good). Always evaluate the edit for yourself instead of just trusting the other reverting editor. If you are unable to explain why you reverted, then you probably shouldn't. One of these situations appeared to happen yesterday on Ronnie Mitchell. I don't know if you realized it, but you were one revert away from violating the three revert rule, which could potentially get you blocked. The other editor appears to have been in violation of WP:SYN, but was discussing it on the talk page, while you weren't giving any explanation via edit summary nor talk page.

Please be careful when using Twinkle. It can be taken away if misused, and too much misuse will more than likely kill any chance of your next request for rollback being successful. Mistakes happen to the best of us, none of us are perfect, but I think that this may be a few too many mistakes for this short amount of time. Besides that, calling a new and inexperienced editor a vandal might well drive off a potentially great editor. Remember, just because an edit removes content (like the edits to Never Ending Tour), doesn't mean that it should be reverted. You really should read it to make sure that it's suitable for an encyclopedia. Also, bad edits are not vandalism (like the edits to Gopal Khanna). If they are trying to help, instead of outright reverting, it is often better to fix what they do wrong and explain why. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That better (see contributions), or is there anything else you want me to self-revert? - Amaury (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I was mainly stating all of that for future reference. As Kww said at your last request for rollback, it seems that you often have trouble seeing the difference between vandalism and edits that you don't agree with. I really just want to help you see where he is coming from with that. I'm sorry if seems like I'm picking on you. That really isn't my intention; my only intention here is to try to help you as much as I can. I know that mistakes are inevitable. I just figure that it's better to be hearing it from me now instead of possibly an admin later :) I just want to help make sure that you don't go through the same problems that you had at the beginning of your WP career. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 00:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry. You're not picking on me, you're being a good friend. - Amaury (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

:) Thanks, I really appreciate that. I also don't want to make it sound like I think that you're the only one who makes mistakes. Just a glance at my contribs will quickly show that that isn't true :) Don't go back too early though if you do, I cringe now at seeing some of the things I did when I first started :) Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 00:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Send me a friend request on MySpace and/or YouTube. See my userpage for links. - Amaury (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not on Youtube, but I will on Myspace. I don't get on there as often as I used to, though. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Friend request accepted! :) - Amaury (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Common (rapper)

many thanks for common move —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.54.73 (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User JarlaxleArtemis

Any user with any variant of "Got Hagger" in it is either User:JarlaxleArtemis or someone referring to him, which is trolling in any case. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. I also apologize. I didn't know. - Amaury (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Islamic views on anal sex

Hi there - I noticed you're keeping an eye on the above page too, could you have another look please? There's one ... "editor" who keeps reverting to the pre-cleanup. Thanks Akerbeltz (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruslan Pukhov

I see you slapped multiple tags on Ruslan Pukhov. Could you explain how the article is confusing to you? I don't understand what you mean. Also, why is it in need of expert opinion? What wikilinks do you mean should be added? It already has many. Offliner (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There you go: [5] - Amaury (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What I still don't understand: what is there that needs to be wikilinked? How is the article a dead end? Why does it need to be expanded (what important info is missing)? Offliner (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand either. IMHO not one of the four tags he added is justified, so I'm going to remove them. Greg Grahame (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

2011 Cricket World Cup

You reverted the following anonymous edit to 2011 Cricket World Cup as vandalism, but it was not, it was actually a correct edit based on breaking news: [6] If you are using automatic software to do these reverts, it really needs to be reviewed. Greg Grahame (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor review 3

Related discussions: Your request for rollback • Editor review 1 • Editor review 2

I'll start by suggesting that you think about opening up a editor review. This would allow you to get feedback from more users than me, which could be beneficial for you because a lot of the time, editors will see things from completely different views. Looking at your recent contribs, most of your reverts looked good, though there were several that that concerned me.

I'm fairly concerned with some of your behavior at Cartoon Network Studios here and here. You told Lamborghini man that he needs to provide sources, but he is removing information. Information needs to be sourced to be included, not removed. The burden of sourcing would be upon you, not him.

I'm changing this one, as my original glance at it didn't catch exactly what was going on. There really needs to be more discussion from both sides here. Since neither side appears to provide much sourcing, if the content is disputed, then sources needs to be provided by one side. However, this is far from vandalism, so calling it vandalism is not appropriate. This is another edit that you don't agree with, not vandalism.

I fail to see how this edit was a vandalism revert at User talk:Jojhutton. I see that there was a block, unblock, and ANI thread on the issue, so it goes a lot deeper than I've seen, but calling an established editor's edit vandalism goes too far IMHO.
I saw that you reverted a couple of editors who removed warnings from their talk pages here and here. Again, per WP:BLANKING, editors are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages if they wish and should not be reverted.
Your external link removal here on Residual stress looks to be correct. Per WP:ELNO, links to forums should be avoided. However, he had attempted discussion and had you explained why the link shouldn't be included, then you might have avoided a headache for both of you.
The tags placed here on Ruslan Pukhov were excessive. When placing tags like that, you really should explain why on the talk page. Here, it is unclear why you think it is unclear :) It has several links for a small article, so that doesn't really look to be an issue. It's not obvious why it needs cleanup or an expert to look at it, etc.
One other note that's not an issue, but just FYI, in The Cool Kat's April Fools Joke, you said that it wasn't April Fools Day yet, when in fact it was :) Editors here come from all over the world, so in turn, many different time zones. So for things like that, we usually go by UTC, where it was 00:48, 1 April 2009 at the time of the joke.

So, in short, remember you should not ask for sources when someone is removing unsourced content, the burden is on the person adding it (EDIT:This does not appear to have been the whole issue, unfortunately, that's the problem with taking a couple of minutes to try to evaluate a subject that I'm not very familiar with); and, don't revert people when they remove warnings, they are fully allowed to do so. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 22:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cartoon Network Studios

The show "Teen Titans" IS NOT a Cartoon Network Studios Original. So its going to be removed from the Cartoon Network Studios Article by ME. The show is Warner Brothers Animation. THE ARTICLE FOR TEEN TITANS IS ON WIKIPEDIA. Teen Titans Article [7] Warner Brothers Animation Article [8]. Comic Book Resources. [9].Lamborghini man 1:43 April 18, 2009

Eugene, I want to apologize for the way I acted yesterday. I should have never did the changes that I did with providing reliable sources. But more importantly, I should have never acted the way I did towards you. I apologize for the way I acted, and I hope all can be forgiven and start off fresh.Lamborghini man 15:19 April 18, 2009

It's okay. No need to beat yourself up. We all make mistakes. - Amaury (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Green Wish Inc

Would you care to explain just what was going through your brain when you tagged a comment on a talk page as being an ATTACK page? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Would CSD G1, G2, or G3 be more appropriate? - Amaury (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not G1, 2, 3, or even G98765432211......the article is tagged for deletion, when the article is deleted, the talk page will be deleted along with it. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that. - Amaury (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Stwalkerster

That was my own ip address removing the information. I sent him an email regarding the same content so that my information was not publicly displayed. Can I remove the warning from my ip addresses page? CanadianNine 15:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There you go. - Amaury (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Formula Libre

Do you dislike this image? It is included on the page. It shows race vehicles of different types lined up before a race. What were you looking for with the photo request? Royal broil 16:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not upset, just wondering what you're looking for. Does that image work? It shows cars and trucks from several series. If a better image comes along, then it can be replaced or supplemented. Royal broil 20:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent

There is private information that should have never been listed, such as ebay ID's etc. Wikipedia policy states that any private information about an individual can be removed if unaccurate and pesonal in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.143.239.89 (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

~~Okay. I have reverted my edit. I will also remove the warning from your talk page. - Amaury (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)~~

Thank you, I would also ask you to remove those listings at the bottom of the page that is saying that real people are hoaxes. That was written by one person's unknowledgable opinion- and is now showing up on goggle searches. Thank you for your concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.143.239.89 (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

None of the information removed by 4.143.239.89 qualifies for removal under any Wikipedia policy that I can find. I've restored the AFD back to the condition it was when it was closed. —Kww(talk) 01:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not true, any person has a right to remove personal info, adresses, telephone numbers, Id's etc. this talk is spilling over onto google- and many of these editors are very irrespopnsible- especially with calling real people hoaxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.143.239.89 (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how the vast majority of what 4.143.239.89 removed could be classified as personal information. A few quick things that were removed, though definitely just a small amount of them (just some that were easily copy and pasted):

the 'references' provided here do not add up
And I think it's a hoax too *Delete - fails WP:V, and appears to be a hoax
Delete almost certainly a hoax, but that doesn't matter: even if it's "true" (and let's face it, it ain't), it's unverifiable by encyclopedic standards.

I'll admit, I didn't read the whole thing, but at a quick glance, it looks like an attempt to re-write the discussion covering up any indication that it may have been a hoax. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Little Lyford Pond Lodge

Little Lyford Pond Camps/ and also Little Lyford Pond Lodge has had its named changed to Little Lyford Lodge/Cabins. I tried to make the appropriate redirects, and edit content of existing information from the Little Lyford Pond Camps article, and heavily edited added information from Appalachian Mountain Club. How can this be interpreted as malicious? Cuvtixo (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You redirected it to a non-existent page. - Amaury (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, I can only do so much at a time! My edits were being made as the updated pages were being put into place. Plus, nothing was put on discussion pages before changing. I feel my good faith efforts have been sabotaged. The maliciousness was not on my part. 71.184.105.86 (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you Cuvtixo? - Amaury (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Blappo

I have unblocked you after consideration. While you were clearly edit warring on User talk:Blappo, I saw your appeal for help on User talk:Dayewalker. FWIW, WP:BLANKING allows users to remove warnings from their talk pages, and you should tread very lightly on edit warring with your history. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I was probably blocked after I went to bed. I never even realized I got blocked, but thanks. Cheers to you, too, Toddst. :) - Amaury (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Toddst, I somehow got auto-blocked. I'm still unable to edit. Can you do something? - Amaury (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Try editing now. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

There we go. Thanks, Gwen! - Amaury (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Seymour Ehrenpreis

Hi, I checked all five diffs on Seymour Ehrenpreis but I saw no attacks. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my mistake. Sorry. I meant A7. - Amaury (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, A7 I could understand - but I'd have downgraded it to notability as IMHO having patents is an assertion of importance. May I suggest you strike out the note you put on the newbies page? Ϣere SpielChequers 07:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:EdgarJT

The message below from EdgarJT is a response to a message I left at User talk:EdgarJT: April 2009

Sorry, my bad, I usually do. Must have slipped my mind. Thanks for the reminder though. Cheers, MFTU (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC) <-- I did it this time =)

You're welcome. - Amaury (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Chrisjnelson - WP:DTR

Please remember to follow this because I noticed this section on a user's talk page who has been here for over two years.--Giants27 ^T/C 01:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eugene. You are free to follow the advice in that essay or not. I personally think that even an editor's doing something as obviously in contravention of policy as removing a speedy tag from an article s/he created warrants a template—in the case of an experienced editor, if only to demonstrate that the action is so clearly against policy that there is a template for it. However, you really need to spend some time at the notability guidelines. For example, the version of the article you nominated for deletion clearly states that the subject plays for an NFL team, hence meeting the notability guideline for athletes, which states (in part), that "people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" are notable. Bongo matic 05:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor review 4

Related discussions: Your request for rollback • Editor review 1 • Editor review 2 • Editor review 3

Hello. I finally finished going through your latest contribs; you sure have been busy ;) Overall, I believe that you've done very well with your vandalism reverts. There were a few that I didn't agree with, but most I thought looked good. However, I would suggest waiting to request for rollback again. I will explain.

This edit to List of Pokémon: Johto League Champions episodes doesn't appear to be vandalism to me, but, as I'm not familiar with the subject, it very well could be. If what the editor is blatantly incorrect, then ignore this bullet, but, if it's not, an explanation should be given.
I actually went and reverted this edit to William Norman Ewer. The sermon that the IP inserted has no place in Wikipedia.
This edit was a revert to a good-faith edit on Auction sniping. The IP told why he removed the table. Arguments could be made both ways about whether the table should stay or go, but as it was before it was removed, was clearly against WP:EL.
As I had already commented on, the reverts discussed in this conversation certainly do not appear to be vandalism, but instead, edit-warring.

The edit-warring in the last bullet is the main thing that is likely to cause a request for rollback to fail. Had you had rollback then, it has to be assumed that you would have used it there (the same with all reverts with no explanation). Using rollback there would have been abuse of it. Due to this and your past history of edit-warring, I'm afraid that another request at this time likely wouldn't be successful. On the bright side, leaving that episode out, unless I missed something, overall, you have certainly improved a lot at vandalism reverts. I feel much more confident now than I did last time that you will get rollback one of these days. If you want to get another editor's opinion or request anyway, I will not feel offended at all, but I would suggest waiting a little longer and demonstrating that you would not use the tool in content disputes.

Not concerning rollback or reverts, but I am a little concerned about some of your speedy deletion tagging. Remember, WP:CSD criteria is intentionally very narrow. Anything that does not fit exactly what it says is likely not a speedy candidate and should be sent to WP:PROD or WP:AfD. Subjects do not have to establish notability to survive A7, just assert it.

Regarding this A7 tag on Blake Schlueter, the article certainly asserts notability. Playing in the NFL is certainly notable.
Regarding this A7 tag to Zoe Jane, the article is about a song, not a musical group, so A7 wouldn't apply. A9 deals with recordings; however, if the recording is by a musical group with an article, it is not a candidate. Since this song is by Staind (which is blue), it is not a candidate.
Regarding this G2 tag on Talk:Unicorn Kid, it is important to always check earlier revisions to make sure that you aren't tagging a vandalized version of an article (or talk page in this instance). Also, when dealing with talk pages with corresponding articles, I find that it is often better to just remove vandalism/tests and replace it with a talk header instead of requesting deletion. I've seen some admins delete them and others just place headers, so I guess that it is often just personal preference.
Regarding this A7 tag to Danish modern, it is about a type of furniture and not a person, an organization, or web content, so A7 doesn't apply.
Regarding this A7 tag to Phil Medley, writing Twist and Shout would be an assertion of notability.
Regarding this A7 tag to James LaRosa, winning an award like that is an assertion of notability.
Regarding this G10 tag on Seymour Ehrenpreis, the article doesn't say anything negative, so G10 can't apply.
Regarding this A7 tag on Amadei, the article is a disambig page listing a few notable people, so A7 can't apply.
Regarding this G2 tag on Bingaram, the article is clearly not a test. It tells about an island. It may have needed a stub tag, but not a CSD tag.
Regarding this G1 tag to Parinyanusorn, unless you have reason to believe that it is blatant misinformation, it's certainly not vandalism.
Regarding this G1 tag to Dorkie, it makes perfect sense, so it's not nonsense.
Regarding this G1 tag to Dodan Barracks, again, unless you have reason to believe that it is blatant misinformation, it's certainly not vandalism.
Regarding this A7 tag to Youth-led development, it is about a term, not an organization or web content, so A7 doesn't apply.
Regarding this A7 tag to Filiz Dinçmen, serving in a Ministry of Foreign Affairs is an assertion of notability.

I also noticed that several tags were placed very quickly after the author edited. Remember, you should wait at least 15 minutes after the authors last edit. Really, it is best to patrol the back of the backlog instead of the front. If there is any chance at all that an article could be made encyclopedic (even if it's poorly written or only one sentence), then it shouldn't be speedied. Rather, it should be improved if possible, or at least sent to PROD or AfD.

So, avoid edit wars and be more careful with speedy tagging. You're definitely improving, so keep it up! Regards, Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 05:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)