Jump to content

User talk:Ged UK/Archives/2010/March

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


BWS again.

Hello Ged, I was wondering if you could take a look at The Black Wall Street Records page again and see if it should once again be locked as it continually gets changed to unsourced vandalism. Thank you. --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GedUK  14:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at MuffledThud's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Amyst article

hi i'm trying to re-make my Amyst (band) article that was once deleted. I have no idea why it was deleted and if it was because I didn't have sources, I don't see why I need them since I went off my own knowledge because I am best friends with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therollingstone09 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. There's two reasons we need sources; one is so that readers can verify the facts in the article, and secondly, sources are important to show that the band is notable. If there are independent sources that discuss the band, then the band is notable, otherwise it probably isn't, and it can't go on wikipedia.
In this case, interviews with the band, have they signed to a label, did their EP make any charts? Any of these would help show that the band might be notable.
I can restore the article to your userspace if you want, so that you can work on it there. Let me know, and I'll move it for you. Cheers. GedUK  21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not know why our page got deleted ?? Please help??

Hi Ged UK --

I have a question regarding the Decision Education Foundation wiki page that recently was deleted. I am learning as I go with regard to placing internal and external links to our wiki page, however it has been deleted and I do not understand why. Is it because of our external links? Can you please help? Thank you. 20:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Nadia —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDecisions (talk • contribs)

Hi there. I deleted it because there was no indication as to why the foundation is notable. Have a look at the notability guidelines, and also at the guidelines for companies to see the level of information we need before it can be included. Essentially, we need independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in some detail. It certainly wasn't deleted because of external links, as there weren't any in the article.
I hope these links help. If you need any more help, feel free to let me know. GedUK  07:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

RfC on Community de-adminship

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My apology

( . Y . ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBansheeQueen (talk • contribs) 14:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

NFL Free Agency

I don't think there will be a lot of activity, but if there is, it is most likely due to this. I'll report anything I see. –Turian (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand US sport transfers and the like, but I know whenever the football (soccer) transfer window opens, the footballers' articles go nuts! GedUK  20:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: your notification

Wrong address I didn't tag SnapComms. User:Ironholds did. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you retagged it. The script isn't clever enough to spot the difference. Sorry about that. GedUK  21:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Abiotic oil

Hi! Left you a message on my talk page. The request for deletion doesn't give us space to articulate a reason.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback.

Hello, Ged UK. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Zhang He (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter Bielkowicz

Hey Ged, regarding Peter Bielkowicz, would you mind looking at the IPs "editing" that page and perhaps consider a warning to the tone-deaf? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I can if you really want, but I don't really know the subject matter particularly well. As they are using several IP addresses, leaving them a note on one probably won't do much good. The best place would be the article talk page. GedUK  11:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Calendars

Regarding your edit summary "IP adding possible OR, protecting to encourage talk page discussion. Additional socking issues taken into account)". I will not be wasting my time discussing with a blocked user. Isn't there a policy against having discussions with blocked users and their sock puppets? If there isn't, there should be. I also won't bother making further improvements to Gregorian calendar, Julian calendar, or Revised Julian calendar because your inadequate action will not protect any improvements from further damage. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there simply isn't the protection history on any of the articles to indef protect them, and on two of them there isn't the recent editing history to give any sort of protection at this stage. GedUK  12:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tia Carrere

I did more research after I made the request. In retrospect, it may have been premature. I haven't seen anything reliable suggesting it, and to my surprise it only appears to have been a single IP. This is my mistake, in requesting it, and I should know better and have checked more in-depth. I support whatever decision you make regarding it; there may be something here that's new enough that the search engines won't pick up, or it may be small prank that I've inadvertently elevated. In any case, thanks for the help. Shadowjams (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. A day won't do any harm, I'm pretty well zero tolerance on death claims. GedUK  11:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bret Wolfe

Bret Wolfe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) // WRT [diff], no reply after a day on unprotecting. It looks like an over-precautionary protection. If there was an issue then this was a long long time ago and it would have been better to put a time-limited protection on the page or make it clear what the pending issue was (if indeed there was one). Any action suggested? Ash (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a protection done at the request of the subject, which I'm guessing means it came via OTRS. I'll email one of the OTRS team leaders (User:Rjd0060) if they can find anything in the records. GedUK  13:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the protection on Blue Valley Southwest High School; a few days should do it, I'm sure. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. GedUK  15:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Gosh, thanks! GedUK  11:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for saving my page!

Thank you very much from preventing Eekster from delting my page, the Judaea Coin Archive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.53.138 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. GedUK  11:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Allopathic Medicine edit warring

Hi there ... I note you're the admin who has protected this page, presumably on the request of Verbal. I've been attempting to get the user to join in a discussion on the talk page about concerns with a section of the article. Specifically a quote being drawn out of context and applied generally (either RS or synth or both).

Verbal seems unwilling to explain their reasoning and simply reverts edits and throws about accusations of vandalism. I previously requested the page be protected for that reason.

I'm willing to accept I may be wrong (although I obviously don't think so at present!) and all I'd like is a few other editors to join constructively on the talk page so we can work out how to improve the article by making correct statements and sourcing them ... not sure how to proceed, or whether to just chalk it up to another wiki page being "owned"

Oh, and thanks for the time you've already taken to look into this 90.201.152.78 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, I protected the article. Verbal made a request at WP:RPP to have the page semi-protected, however I felt that full protection (ie nobody except admins can edit it) would encourage all parties to use the talk page to come to consensus. I felt that semi-protection (ie IPs can't edit, users can) would have been unfair on you. There are a number of ways to proceed. Firstly, if you can't get consensus on the talk page (though I think you might, it didn't seem that you were arguing on your own), you could make a request for comment where third party editors can give their view. GedUK  15:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ged. Actually I don't think other editors agreed with my views, they just didn't dispute I was acting in good faith. Which is fine. I think a few editors on the talk page with a shared desire to improve the article, and differing views would be ideal. As it stands, Verbal has made his edit and got the page locked. Going on past form I don't think we'll see him again. 90.201.152.78 (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, you have to try to build consensus with the editors who take part; if Verbal doesn't get involved, that's his choice. GedUK  16:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh indeed, well I'm happy to talk it through with others and see if something better can be done, no problem. I just think Verbal will be along to lock it all up again regardless. He seems to have a track record of victimising other editors. 90.201.152.78 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
My opinion, FWIW, is that if the term has wildly different meanings to different people/countries, then the article needs to make that clear, rather than trying to find a WHO/UN/international definition that doesn't fit any of them properly. The comment (by Hans Adler off the top of my head) on the talk page explained it better than the article in either of its iterations did. GedUK  14:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Victorian Era

I believe that Victorian era should be moved to the title of Victorian Era do u beilieve so?STAT-Verse 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really, no, but the place to discuss it is the article's talk page, rather than a random editor like me! GedUK  07:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I asked u cause as a Admin i thought u would be able to help with a possible move —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott i am (talk • contribs) 22:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I can help you do the move, but my opinion on whether it should move or not isn't more important than anyone else's. GedUK  07:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A Little Bit

I understand why you partially declined my request at RFPP: it's always a bit dicey when there are legitimate anon edits mixed in. I'd like to persuade you to reconsider A Little Bit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), though. In reverse order, the edits are:

  • Me reverting Punkox
  • Punkox
  • Me reverting Punkox
  • Punkox
  • Circusstar making a legitimate change
  • Me cleaning up old chart corruption
  • Me reverting Punkox
  • Punkox
  • Zscout370 doing a cleanup
  • Punkox
  • Anonymous Brazilian edit
  • Big batch of anonymous edits introducing bad charts that needed to be removed later
  • Punkox
  • FumblingTowardsEcstasy reverts bad chart addition
  • anonymous bad chart addition
  • FumblingTowardsEcstasy reverts Punkox
  • Punkox
  • Punkox
  • FumblingTowardsEcstasy reverts Punkox (Zlipz is a Punkox sock)
  • Punkox
  • FumblingTowardsEcstasy reverts Punkox
  • Punkox
  • Punkox
  • Bot category edit
  • I revert Punkox
  • Punkox
  • Punkox
  • I revert anonymous bad chart additions
  • I revert anonymous bad chart additions
  • Anonymous chart corruption
  • Punkox
  • Punkox
  • FumblingTowardsEcstasy reverts Punkox
  • Punkox
  • LingNut does minor tidy
  • Image Removal Bot
  • Punkox (Fkng is a Punkox sock)
  • Punkox
  • Punkox

That takes us back one year. The anonymous edits that weren't Punkox socking were people adding charts that needed to be reverted, with the exception of one edit fiddling with the genres. This article warrants semi-protection as a chronic problem.—Kww(talk) 15:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This was the article I pondered over the longest. I've given it three months, as it has some protection history, which off the top of my head, the others didn't. Feel free to come back to me with the others I didn't protect if it really picks up again (more than one every week or so I guess). GedUK  15:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Dealing with socks, I tend not to take frequency into account as much as I do with vandalism. My real goal is to present such a wall of protection around the group of articles they find interesting that they give up. That's why some of the requests seem a little marginal.—Kww(talk) 16:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand. GedUK  19:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

About deletion of the Model-Builder Article

Hello,

I just noticed that you have deleted one article of my authorship which was related to a free-software (GPL licensed) project of which I am am the main developer.

I think the article should be "undeleted" because it served as an important source of information about Model-builder, as it included many examples of use.

The arguments defending the deletion mentioned that the code was not available. That is not true, and the code for the various versions has been available since 2006 in [1] and more recently here [2]

I think I should also point out that this Software has been part of the official Debian and Ubuntu Linux distributions for more than a year now.

So, with that in mind I would like to request that the deletion decision be reverted and the article be put back online.

thank you

Flávio Codeço Coelho Fccoelho (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. The article was deleted as a result of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Model-Builder discussion. As an administrator, my role is to evaluate the discussion and determine the community's consensus. There was no doubt about the software existing, the question was one around notability. To be notable to wikipedia standards, there needs to be substantial coverage in independent reliable sources; in this case, this would likely be substantial reviews in magazines or online, stories about how it's being used somewhere notable, that sort of thing.
I'm happy to restore it to your userspace so that you can work on it, but I can't at this stage restore it to wikipedia proper. Feel free to message me if you've any further questions. Thanks. GedUK  13:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making that issue of notability clearer to me. If you would be so kind as to restore it to my userspace, I can try to collect notability references and possibly repost the article in the future. Fccoelho (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done It's now at User:Fccoelho/Model-Builder. Regards. GedUK  08:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Rollback

I saw your message on my talk page, and I thank you for your offer. I would like to graciously accept your kind offer for rollback, I hope it will make reverting mass vandalism easier for me. Thank you very much. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

I'm trying to figure out how to make it possible to get my articles i've made without searching the exact name of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckenrrp (talk • contribs) 02:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean? GedUK  13:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry that was confusing. I'll give an example...."acdc" will take you to the article "ac/dc." How is that possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckenrrp (talk • contribs) 16:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. You mean a WP:redirect. On the page you want to redirect from you put #REDIRECT [[target]] where <target> is the page you want the redirect to point to. Hope this helps. GedUK  17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckenrrp (talk • contribs) 03:33, 20 March 2010

Gareth Thomas still

I have posted on the talk page again reiterating that Gareth's sexuality is relevant enough for the lede. In addition to putting himself on the cover of an Attitude magazine issue, he is 1 of 20 people who have told their story in a brochure for The Lesbian & Gay Foundation (http://www.lgf.org.uk/assets/Uploads/PDFs/Resources/aim-high-2010.pdf | http://www.lgf.org.uk/gareth-thomas/). The Daily Mail article is even linked from Gareth's official site http://officialgareththomas.com/. –– ljhenshall (talk page) 21:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page. GedUK  21:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Lithuanian people editwar

Recently you you posted a 3RR warning an my talk page. Because of seriousness of accusation I ask you to ground you statement. Here is first revert, here is second, where is third one within a 24-hour period? Please point me to it or remove this message from my talk page. Thank you --Justass (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You haven't made the third, that's just a friendly notification that you (and the other user involved) are getting close to it, and that an edit war is close to breaking out. Use the article talk page to discuss your changes first. GedUK  09:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Poles

Good for you! Vandalism must be stopped, semi- protected article is the best option.--marekchelsea (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Barnes

Hi Ged

Thanks for your advice on this article. I did half expect the page protection request to be refused if I'm honest.

I've warned this editor about 4 times in the last week and have invited them to join in the discussion at Talk: Oliver Barnes to discuss the reasons why they don't want certain members of this characters family included in the character infobox but they've refused to join in the discussion. If they edit like this again would I be able to warn them about long term vandalism do you think? --5 albert square (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've warned them with a level three warning, they've had plenty of firsts. If they continue, issue a level 4 (final) (use {{subst:uw-vandalism4|Oliver Barnes}} ~~~~, and if they do it again, take them to AIV. If they use a different IP, then let me know and I'll protect the page. GedUK  13:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that Ged, I'll let you know :) --5 albert square (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I hope you don't mind me leaving you a message. I've also been keeping an eye on this situation and I've just seen that the IP editor has returned to remove the content from the Oliver Barnes article again and the Declan Napier article. They have not given a reason for the content removal in their edit summary nor used the talk page. Should I issue them with the level 4 warning or should it be lower? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 17:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's disruptive editing as far as I'm concerned. GedUK  18:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I'm trying to help out when I can. I was about to ask you actually whether you know of a script for protecting. I have one installed in my monobook but it hasn't worked for a while. It used to automatically add the protection tag and I think it also posted a note on RfPP, though I don't recall exactly. It was a bit slow but faster than doing it manually. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have that same script (it offers options in the toolboxes on the left), but it doesn't work. The short answer is no, I do it all manually these days! I do have a script to add templates to articles, that speeds things up a bit. It's in my monobook. GedUK  15:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just added this one ('User:Steel359/protection.js'), which shows the tags in the toolbar, so that should make a big difference. I was having to try to remember them all before. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll give that one a try! GedUK  18:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, i've already got that one, it stopped working a while back, annoyingly. GedUK  18:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unite Against Fascism

Hello Ged UK. I needed to find a closure for the report at WP:AN3#User:Gaius Octavius Princeps reported by User:O Fenian (Result: Protected), so I put on five days of protection. From the talk page I see you're already watching the article. Feel free to adjust or remove the protection if you think there is a better way to handle things. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. GedUK  18:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kościuszko and Poles

1. Why did you alow user Marekchelsea to do this edit: [3]? The reference clearly states he was Belarusian stock, and just for the record, Ruthenian and Belarusian are the same thing! Same thing about deleting the Belarus related categories, on the discussion page it was many time discussed that it's not right few Polish nationalists delete those stuff, yet they keep on doing it, and by ignoring it you give legitimacy to it.

2. Kościuszko was not an ethnic Pole, while the article Poles is about the ethnic group Pole, so how can he stay in the collage? And one more thing! I started on the discussion page a discussion about it as you can see, could you force all sides to take part in it? It's not right people just revert without giving any rational to why they revert.

3. On the page Poles you blamed me for sock puppetry and even blocked me indefinitely, that is simply not true. I wasn't blocked till you blocked me, I was editing from the IP because I didn't feel like loging in, thats all. It's weird that I'm blocked, while user Marekchelsea who kept on ignoring the talk poge when I asked him to enter there for discussion and who deleted references and delets categories is not blocked. Please unblocked me and force ALL sides to explaine themselves on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.169.194 (talk • contribs)

You were edit warring against consensus. I haven't blocked you. GedUK  20:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Against concensus? What concensus?? In the Kościuszko many people said that it's not right that he's Belarusian origin is deleted yet for a reason it was ignored, so it's not the concensus what you returned, it was two people reverting whatever doesn't fit their POV, the fact is they ignored the discussion page, how is it concensus if it was not on the discussion page? Same thing about the Poles page! I started a discussion, yet no one came, so how is it a concensus? I many times asked everybody to come to the talk page to talk, to reach the concensus, yet they ignored it! Can you unblock me? It's really not right I was blocked! I already explained what's going on. 79.177.169.194 (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Tedium/Punkox

Believe me, I know dealing with socks is tedious. Monitoring all the Simpson articles and determining whether the IPs track to Peru (and similar problems with Jay Sean, Hilary Duff, 30 Seconds to Mars, Lindsay Lohan, Beyonce Knowles, all with different sockmasters) gets extremely tedious, as does the constant reversion and the filling of SPI reports. I don't understand why you get stuck with handling so many of my requests at RFPP, and I hope it doesn't create a problem between us. The tedium is why I prefer large batches and long semi-protections. It avoids situations like the one that is coming up, where the first batch I requested due to Punkox is expiring, leaving another point of opportunity for him. Processing large batches for a month or more may be stretching the limits of protection policy, but it is reasonably effective.

Punkox is actually pretty minor. The worst I monitor is Brexx. His target article list is at User:Kww/Brexx2 (not even possible to protect), and his sockpuppet report WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive is so long some of the clerks can't handle the archiving any more.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. Sorry, I didn't mean to say your reports were tedious, they aren't, they're necessary. Just the whole Punkox vandalising is tedious, though it's worse for you I'm sure. Not creating a problem at all.
It's a quirk of timing generally, I seem to be the first European admin on. I often come on to a 25/30/40+ backlog, and just wade through. It's been a bit better recently, but it's just one of those things. GedUK  14:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome thingy

Oops, thanks, see User_talk:Chzz#Driveby_idle_query  Chzz  ►  06:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Page Creation

I have recently been working with DGG to tighten up a page I created for David Alfonso. When he suggested that I not use his middle initial, I was notified that you deleted a page for him about a year ago. I don't know what that page said but please work with me to ensure that my article is tight. Thanks AcquisitionGuru (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've copied the text from the previous version, it's now at User:AcquisitionGuru/David Alonso. Hope this is helpful. Let me know when you're finished with it, and I'll delete it again (the userpage). GedUK  09:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello

hello i'm a new member. Sunday 28 March 2010, 18:52 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.C Jamie2389 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Philter Communications Page

Just seeing why our page was deleted. We believe it follows all the required info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philterkevin (talk • contribs) 19:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It was very, very spammy; it read like an advert. Additionally, there's no real indication of notability; no third party sources, reviews of the company, feature articles, interviews etc. Have a review of WP:CORP to see the notability standards required for articles on companies. I'd also recommend you read WP:COI about potential conflicts of interest; you shouldn't really write about your own company, it's difficult to be objective. GedUK  19:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigurnosno Izvestajna Sluzba

Hello. It's not problem with diacritics. The problem is that it is misspelled in Croatian, so this is unnecessary redirect. However, if Wikipedia has a policy that that supports that wrong redirections, then ignore this message. Thnks--Fajberglas (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

AH yes, good point; i just checked the first and last word! Deleted now. GedUK  19:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Occupation of the Baltic states

This reopened request to move has been moved to backlog. I would appreciate if you personally close it. (Igny (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

 Done GedUK  07:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion declined: The Final Riot! Tour

Hi Ged UK. The AfD in question, is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brand New Eyes Tour. It was paired in with another tour article, which I see has also been recreated with a slightly different name, but not yet tagged (see Brand New Eyes Fall Tour). Regards :) -- WikHead (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done GedUK  19:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Issue

Good day,

I don't believe what I was adding is vandalism, I have sources to cite what I posted, and it's legit information. Please let me know why you think this, and tell me why you think this stat is not worthy to add to the Undertaker's wiki page. I think it is, it also emphasizes the Taker's WM Legacy.

Thank you,

Jose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Jose Carlos (talk • contribs) 04:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've never said anything you've been adding has been vandalism as far as I know. I protected The Undertaker article as it was getting a lot of vandalism, but not by you. GedUK  07:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK/Archives/2010/March&oldid=1143018652"