Jump to content

User talk:Caulde/Archive/5

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

RV Manchester Airport

Hey, I'm relatively sure it is the same person. The IP address of the person who keeps adding back Newquay changes, but it always starts with 79.72. V-train 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

I would strongly suggest you read any outstanding formal complaints against an editor before nominating him/her to be an administrator. --Cheeser1 21:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


{{GreaterManchester-health-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 02:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


WPGM Newsletter - November 2007

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Newsletter/December 2007


Rudget Contributions 17:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your Newsletter

Sorry! I will make some changes soon - promise. It's just really good! :D! And anyway, as they say, all the best things are borrowed! (Plus i'm crap at editing anything more complicated as a portal on WP - especially if I have to set it up!!! Bluegoblin7 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Howat

Please could you give me some idea of why you think that the article requires clean-up? I had fondly imagined that I had produced a reasonsbly good article, had gone to some trouble to provide working links wherever possible, and was a little surprised to find that it had been tagged within about two minutes of my creating it. JH (talk page) 17:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. JH (talk page) 18:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Craig

Any particular reason why you closed this AfD after barely more than 12 hours? Your edit summary or closing comments provided no explanation. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you for contacting me about the closure. The article, Alicia Craig, was kept due to the (IMO) snow keep that was registered. 88.8% of the votes were supporting the keeping of the article, whilst there was 11.1% of the vote against (you). I do see that the article was created on the November 4, and therefore may be expanded more in the following few days. If you have any other questions, don’t hesitate to ask me. Rudget Contributions 09:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: GM newsletter

Just a brief line to say thanks for this! It was a great read! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC

Article for deletion: Doubledotdash!?

Hi, I was the creator of an article you recently discussed and deleted [1]. Whatever your reasons for supporting the deletion, I do not think it overly polite to summarily remove it without so much as a note on my talk page to let me know. An AfD discussion is only a discussion if there is more than one point of view being expressed - and since no attempt was made to contact me it was impossible for me to provide the evidence you sought. Please bear this in mind when completing AfDs in future. Onesecondglance 08:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OneSecondGlance. Since you don't edit that often I'm not that sure you'll be able to respond that quickly to this message. Anyway, as far as I can recall the article that was being discussed was overwhelmingly ad-like, and therefore compliant with AFD measures, or even speedy deletion. I do recognise and appreciate that AFD is meant to discuss the article and that is what occured. You're statement that I deleted your article is actually incorrect, (see the deletion log). It would be appropriate of me to refer you to Wikipedia's stringent policies on that specific area, such as making sure the article is verifiable;it has reliable sources and most importantly independent sources that can back up any claim and what Wikipedia isn't, in your case a soapbox. Thank you for your time here at Wikipedia and thank you for contacting me about the closure in October. Regards, Rudget Contributions 16:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the swift reply, Rudget. The reason for my message was that, as you noted, I wasn't editing that frequently through October, so I was somewhat surprised to find the article deleted without any mention. I was perhaps under the assumption that if an article goes for AfD it's good practice to let the original author know, in the same way it's good to let them know if a PROD or speedy deletion template is added. I'm honestly a touch disappointed you found the article ad-like or a self-promoting vanity piece - it was never intended as such, just a bit of info about a local organisation in my area. I certainly tried to make it encyclopaedic in style - but notability is always going to be contentious (wikipedia is somewhat strict in its definitions) so I don't think there's any value in contesting that, though. Anyway, thanks for the response.Onesecondglance 16:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although it would be worth noting that I never actually edited the page, proposed it for deletion on the article page, deleted it, or put it up at AFD. I would also like to note your apparent sincerity you have given in your message, it is appreciated, and I am very sorry that the article was deleted without your notification. Make sure not to write articles like that in the future, and you should do fine. I'm sure of it.
The Resilient Barnstar
Here, you can have this for your efforts and my appreciation for your understanding the sometimes dizzying world of Wikipedia. Rudget Contributions 16:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of airports that able to offering regular flights by Airbus A380 aircraft

List of airports that able to offering regular flights by Airbus A380 aircraft, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of airports that able to offering regular flights by Airbus A380 aircraft satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airports that able to offering regular flights by Airbus A380 aircraft and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of airports that able to offering regular flights by Airbus A380 aircraft during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MilborneOne 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming at CHU

They can't make an account that is close to the name of an already existing account. We therefore do capitalisation and spacing fixes. We also rename people with 50 edits. Secretlondon 22:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Not so secret

Well, it is not so secret anymore if you post that header on my talk page! Process of discovery: look at talk page, see no RFA thanks, Woody thinks s/he might not like RFA spam (some people don't), check page history, sees edit summary of "manual archive of RFA thanks." Woody then checks index and finds page! Sorry if you wanted it on your talk page? ;) Woodym555 17:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we could just delete the posts of both pages, you stop using edit summaries about archiving thanks ;), and then we forget it ever happened. ;) Woodym555 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Princess Frederica of Hanover

I've recently closed the AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Frederica of Hanover, as a keep. If you have any further comments to make, please don't hesitate to contact me anytime on my talk page. Regards, Rudget zŋ 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Well, I certainly don't agree with the statement "daughter of a current monarch". Nor do I think "daughter of a monarch" is a sufficient argument rendering her article-worthy. I really wish that administrators could see this, in addition to the information being royaltycruft. Also, on that basis, it seems no one cared too much about Princess Marie of Hanover in the discussion. She should be deleted. In fact, I don't think anyone mentioned her. Charles 19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you forgot to remove the tags from the article Princess Marie of Hanover, I have reinstated them until this is addressesd. Only a single user payed attention to Marie and that was after the discussion was over, and she was added before anyone had even commented on the Afd. Please post back to my page, since the Afd for Marie is seemingly still open, really. Charles 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't like the phrase "I really wish that administrators could see this". You seem to assume they must be wrong. You may not think children of a monarch are automatically notable, I, as others, do. That doesn't mean we are wrong. People mentioned Frederica because she was the lead one on the deletion page, but the closing comments refer to both, as both are children of a monarch. --UpDown 20:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO ONE mentioned her at all and after the comments you made at the Afd, you are not welcome to post on my talk page I've decided. Charles 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well "daughter of a current monarch" is just one keep, isn't it? The article is relatively short (See:Assessment), and only (in my opinion) relates to the notability of the subject, and therefore agrees with the section about people who are relatively unknown in the biographies of living person policy. Even if the subject is dead. Furthermore, seen as I am not an administrator I couldn't possibly comment on their individual policies, and Princess Marie of Hanover seems to be a separate article, so why would it be discussed with the article that got kept? Regards, Rudget zŋ 20:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is your reasoning, it is faulty. "Why should it have been...". The fact is it was, it was there in plain sight and because no one chose to comment on it doesn't mean that it should have been simply ignored then just kept in light of other people not seeing it. Charles 20:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I agree with your comments on my talk page, and as before suggest a new AFD for the other article. Regards, Rudget zŋ 20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to be bold and merge to her father's article. All of the information is contained there now. Charles 20:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If you think merging the article is the best course of action, I will not disagree. However, could you and User:UpDown be in violation of WP:3RR here? Rudget zŋ 20:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a peek and no, it is after the fourth revert for an individual person. Charles 20:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR did concern me, but they I am now reverting a redirect, not a AfD tag adding like before. I will not revert again, but would ask Charles puts it to AfD.--UpDown 20:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? 3RR? Rudget zŋ 20:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am certain, although it was close and I never wish to be engaged in edit wars. Charles 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the impartial manner in which you (and the admins as well) conducted yourself throughout this event. It is refreshing to see people act in a dignified and fair manner, although I must say I still feel very much unwelcome given how the "royal community" here has decided to treat me. At this moment, I am deleting a large proportion of my watch list so I can avoid these sort of articles. Charles 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Rudget zŋ 11:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin AfD close?

At Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Closing_an_Afd, there is some discussion over the question of how you can close the Princess Frederica AfD if you're not an administrator. Since the discussion is about you, I felt you should know. Doczilla 03:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, it's always helpful to get pointers from the community. Rudget zŋ 11:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!!

w00t lovely new userpage!! I feel like a small child with a new toy!! Thank you Loads!!! Its brilliant, no complaints! XD PhilB ~ T/C 16:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite alright. Belated best, Rudget zŋ 17:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty!

I think you've been stealing parts of my userpage :). Well, actually - I stole them from Daniel and AGK originally, so they're not mine :) Qst (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took them from Rlest actually, but then again.... that's you! :) Rudget zŋ 16:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:) Qst (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That smile was not smiling at the new accounts I used to create, just to clarify. Qst (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking that anyway...  :] Rudget zŋ 17:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you weren't, but it was incase somebody came along and thought I was laughing at what I had done. Qst (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Adoption

Yes, I would like to be adopted by you BTW: I have 193 edits, I think... --escondites 17:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. How do I cite a website as a source for an article? --escondites 17:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! But I don't get one thing: I did what you said in this article, and nothing happens when I click on the [1] and the [2]. Is that normal? --escondites 17:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I works now. Cool. And how are you these days? --escondites 17:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually quite funny that you're talking about that... I was one of the founding members of WP:Algeria! --escondites 18:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, I'm creating 3 templates in my sandboxes... I'll show you the results :-) --escondites 16:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Can you help me on the infobox I made? The one at Naâma Province doesn't show the field "capital" even tought it is in the infobox! I hope you know how to fix that :-) Thanks. --escondites 16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! There's, however, another problem now: the pages which contain this template have this before the article {{#if:| and the template page shows {{#if:{{{state}}}|? --escondites 16:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please! You do not have to be sorry, I mean, I didn't know it, too ;-) --escondites 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin nomination

Thank you for your offer to nominate me for admin status. It is very gratifying. What's particularly gratifying is that you're the sixth person to raise this issue with me in the last week and a half. I'm definitely considering it, although for the last 24 hours I've been clearly inclined to say no. If I accept a nomination, though, it will have to wait a little bit. (1) Despite the massive amount of editing I've done in the last week, I actually need to cut back for a couple of weeks because I need to finish writing a textbook chapter before Thanksgiving. (2) I want to take this month and next month to work on what I consider to be my weak points, getting to know Wikipedia policies even better and working in areas where I haven't done much work. For example, prior to this month, I'd made a grand total of one image edit -- ever. (3) I'm really not sure about becoming an administrator. Right now, I get to pick and choose when I try to help people resolve disputes. As an admin, I'd have a responsibility to get involved in some hairy messes which won't be fun to crowd my brain with.

I see that you'd like to become an administrator. May I ask why? For yourself as an individual human being, how should the advantages of using admin tools outweigh the grief that can go with them? Doczilla 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite alright [regarding the nomination thanks], you do deserve to be an administator. I'm sure that waiting a little bit would be of no matter, it will only further your demonstration to !voters in your RfA (if it goes ahead) that you should be a sysop. The fact that you say

"Right now, I get to pick and choose when I try to help people resolve disputes. As an admin, I'd have a responsibility to get involved in some hairy messes which won't be fun to crowd my brain with".

,to me, shows that you have contemplated the issues you will come across, and by doing so will have already thought of the right reprimands for vandal users. Your experience here at the wiki, is unbelievable, and this co-inciding with your anticipation of what will happen, to me, shows you have a greater understanding of Wikipedia policies than many more users who are admins now. And yes, I would like to be an admin, but that's neither here nor there now, I've learnt from that experience at RfA, and I'll probably wait until I'm nominated way down the line, in February/March or something. But my reasons for becoming an administrator aren't for all the glamour and hype that surrounds them, nor the powers that they inevitably will have, but the moral and indepedent responsibility of each and every admin has: a duty to protect Wikipedia from users who are here to cause trouble through the many ways possible. The grief from the users, mainly IPs (as I'm sure you already know) is undoubtedly the biggest rationale for some admins leaving Wikipedia, you just have to retain your cool, stay well-balanced, and become level-headed and bold in your actions. I'm not sure whether the admin tools do really outweigh it because it's would seem to be like an MP without any supporters, just opponents. And what shall you do?, please your own party? or another that has the opposition and support they need? I'm pleasantly optimistic that you will become an admin this time, because you truly do deserve be one, and I would be honoured to nominate a user such as yourself. Regards, Rudget zŋ 11:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: ":So you gonna let me nom you? :)" If I do it at all, I won't before January. Regardless of that, I owe it to the people who first brought up the issue to let them. We've edited hundreds of the same articles and participated in so many of the same discussions, so it's only fair to them and it's practical too because they know the most about me. Very seriously, I thank you for your thought. Yours, Doczilla 21:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

I have asked for a deletion review of List of Desitantions served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 and 2 at deletion review. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I have also listed 3, just so they're all together. I (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether that would happen, I'll try and see what happens and if not we can always merge the three into one larger page as suggested in the AFDs. Regards, Rudget zŋ 11:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I closed the DRV early as the outcome was fore-ordained and further discussion would have been pointless. Can I suggest that you don't close any contentious AFDs until after/if you become an admin? Its also never cool to close any discussion in which you have voiced an opinion. The effect is that we have to throw away the first discussion and start again. This is a needless waste of time and effort on the part of other users that could have been avoided. Plus I could have done without the fiddly job of relisting this lot. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now I feel bad for snapping at you when you clearly meant well and its hardly your fault that our deletion policies are so arcane, difficult to understand and so user-unfriendly. A good tip is to find some lengthy explanations on some XFD and read the closing admin's explanation for their close. This is how I learned how to judge afd consensus and is a great way to learn how we work. Sorry for being so grumpy. Spartaz Humbug! 20:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Hello Random832! I see earlier this year made this edit. Could I ask whether it was made in good faith and evaluated the situation appropriately? I just need a bigger picture! :) Regards, Rudget zŋ 16:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The specific edit you linked was simply moving a comment around because the automerge that sometimes happens in an edit conflict situation had put my comment in a strange place (Note from the indentation levels that my comment was a reply to Mathsci - I moved it below Zsero's comment simply because it was made after his).
If your question was about the comment itself; I do think that, while no-one has an obligation to reveal their RL identity, they (a) probably shouldn't be claiming academic credentials without doing so, and (b) if they do, certainly shouldn't be the one criticizing someone else for doing the same (glass houses and all that) - That was all I was trying to say there. —Random832 16:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I will now support your RFA, thanks for notifying me of the situation so quickly. Regards, Rudget zŋ 17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict - i wrote this before i saw your responses) To put it in some more context: That dispute was, if I remember correctly, not very long after the Essjay thing, so a lot of people were maybe a little more wary of any claim of academic credentials than really made sense. Now that that's settled down, my view is probably more that a claim to be a professor of something or other is about as relevant as a claim of being an orc warrior in any case, so if that dispute had happened today rather than in July, I would probably have focused more on the fact that since it doesn't matter if he (Georgiev) is a professor or not it was probably a bad move in the first place to inflame things by attacking that claim. the problem with Mathsci's claim that Georgiev was "in a weak position" for contradicting his claimed credentials. —Random832 17:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarification. Rudget zŋ 17:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually completely screwed up that clarification; I should have re-read more thoroughly before trying to summarize that. Disregard the text I struck out - Georgiev never claimed to be a professor of anything anyway. I got confused. (I mean now - I wasn't confused then, it's just that it's been five months) —Random832 17:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Yes, thanks for the co-nomination in my RFA, it was unexpected because I hadn't noticed your name before; but I was flattered by the notice you had taken of me and your kind words. I think I'm shier than some other editors, and I tend to work somewhere off in the backwaters of Wikipedia instead of often-viewed or contentious articles, but I'm pleased to have made your acquaintance. Rigadoun (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Acid house

Hi Rudget, you recently semiprotected Acid house at my request, now that the semiprotection period has ended the problem has started again, see [2]. Could you take some action please? Thanks in advance! Jvhertum 12:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Jvhertum. I see what you mean, unfortunately I am going to refrain from requesting protection of the page, and I suggest you do the same, as I am certain that the admin who would do the task would like to see more vandalism, i.e. a bigger and more better rationale for requesting protection of the page. Wait to see if there is anymore unconstructive or vandal edits (circa.10 edits) and then ask here, as I'm sure you already know. Regards, Rudget zŋ 15:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, we'll wait 'n' see! Jvhertum 08:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Rudget notice to readers}}

This probably shouldn't be in the template namespace. You should move it to a subpage of yours, and trasclude it from there. You could move it to User:Rudget/notice to readers. I (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Rudget zŋ 16:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 45 5 November 2007 About the Signpost
Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 3, Issue 46 12 November 2007 About the Signpost
Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Minor edit

Anytime. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 16:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Changing username

Thanks for your help in clerking this page. Please don't specify the account's edit count unless its relevant though - it rather suggests we don't value new users. If they want a change to a different spelling or capitalisation, the edit count isn't relevant as they can't create the account themselves. Really we should only flag it up when the accounts only edits are to the username page and they want an account they could just create themselves. WjBscribe 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re:Stub types for deletion

Hi Rudget - it's normal practice for the person who closes these things to be someone who wasn't involved in the nomination (it reduced any accusations of bias), so I'm probably not the best person to ask. Don't worry - it should be closed pretty soon now that it's in the "old business" section. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Rudget zŋ 15:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closures

Hey, great work with the non admin closures. Just a word of advice (I'm guilty of this, too) is to add (Non admin closure) or something similar to that when closing, just so people can see its a non admin closing. Although it is not compulsory, it is common practice — but I had to be reminded over IRC a week or so ago :). Best wishes, Qst 16:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Qst! I've not closed any AFDs since my statemet, here. Thanks. Rudget zŋ 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SkierRMH

If you really want a laugh, read Evula's edit summary after mine. I never knew RfA could be such fun. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. :) Rudget zŋ 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11,000

The joys of pre-bot editing ;) I was doing manually what my bot SkiersBot is doing automatically now! SkierRMH 18:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bricks In The Wall

Hello. I am the one that created the new article for Bricks In The Wall. I am having hard time navigating around this site. I see that my submission is being discussed for deletion, but I can't determine how to reply. I saw you made comments regarding it, so I thought I would start here.

Bricks in the Wall is an LLC filed in Texas and I am listed as one of the managers of the LLC. I'm not sure how you provide info backing statements other than websites, pictures. you could probably find listings of the bands performances or archived articles. There have been articles written in the Dallas Observer in 2007. Fort Worth Star Telegram in 2004-05

The band's last performance was October 13th at The House of Blues Dallas.

This is similar to the band Wish You Were Here that is listed in Wiki

any quidance would be appreciated

Thanks Travis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsatterca (talk • contribs) 22:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Caulde/Archive/5&oldid=1090492692"