User talk:Jrphayes/Archive Feb 2008

Your rollback request

I have granted your rollback request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism only, and should not be abused by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Good luck. Acalamari 02:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want, but it'll get archived later. Acalamari 02:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hey, yeah, not a problem, let's do it! As I've done before, why don't you set up a sandbox style page where we can collate the discussions we'll have and the first task would be to answer the standard RFA questions right away so I can see where you heading... All the best! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm a peer reviewer, FLC reviewer and FAC reviewer and enjoy it enormously. Let me know when you're done! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to spend some time this afternoon reviewing your answers and contributions and then we can talk strategy.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks For Your Reply

This is Jon56WWE, I edited the Ric Flair article. Thank you for your reply, I did think that it was an important fight as it was at a pay-per-view (Royal Rumble) but I understand and will try and add relevant and notable information to the articles I edit. Sorry for the vandilism. Thanks Jon56WWE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon56WWE (talk • contribs) 16:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) fans

I have nominated Category:Wikipedian football (soccer) fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. User:Dorftrottel 21:36, February 7, 2008 21:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Shaggy

No problem. If you see this section on my talk page it's a IP and ISP hopping editor who's taken umbrage at me removing English Catholics categories en masse. Per BLP they aren't supposed to be used unless the subject self-identifies and it's relevant to their notability, I'm pretty lenient on the second one but on dozens of articles there was no mention of them even being Catholic execept for the category. Rather than just add the category, the IP editor is sloppily reverting to previous versions ignoring any edits since mine as well (it's not the same editor from the Etchingham article, that one's more than reasonable). Good luck with the GA. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

True. There's plenty of people like that though. Many people went to a religious school of some description, but it's a big leap from there to meeting the criteria specified in WP:BLP for categorising by religion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say "I’m not truly religious, but I’ve got Catholic family" is pretty much the clincher for not including the category. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I only just found it myself, thinking some evidence one way or the other would be handy. I'm from way up north, my username is a song by DJs/producers from the London techno squat party scene. Been going to London parties for years and years and years, was down there last weekend actually. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Etiquette

Hi there, I appreciate what you say, and in normal circumstances I would archive stuff, but due to the harrassment and headache ive been getting off the Rambling Man, with many unfair, untrue, blind sighted and narrow minded comments I just wanted it deleted and be forgotten - I shall delete the rest of that particular conversation shortly as, as you said it does give the impression you started the convo. I shall archive converstaions in the future providing they are based on more constructive arguments and arent someone just being picky and bullying. Thanks anyway Sarumio (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Darby

Partly. I just think WP:FOOTBALL in general has been broken by this new notability criteria. I feel as though I've been wasting my time and don't want to waste any more. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure and I understand that. I don't see anything you've done as being negative - it's just a general malaise, really. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The GTA 11

It depends how you look at them. Personally I've always worked on the principal that if it requires a previous game to run it then it is an expansion for that game and not a new game in it's own right. But the London games are hard to discount because they weren't just expansions they were total conversions and in one sense were different games. In the long run it's probably better that expansion packs aren't counted, because if they were, it would mean that there are 15 games in The Sims series, and none of us want that. - X201 (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

GA: I know, the stability clause. I was just planting the idea in peoples heads. Given that it's an unreleased game, it's in a damn sight better condition than a lot of other articles. - X201 (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User VYRE Unify user-1

A tag has been placed on Template:User VYRE Unify user-1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User VYRE Unify user-2

A tag has been placed on Template:User VYRE Unify user-2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User VYRE Unify user-3

A tag has been placed on Template:User VYRE Unify user-3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User VYRE Unify user-4

A tag has been placed on Template:User VYRE Unify user-4 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Elephant

Changed it to a lvl 2 warning. Dengero (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, brain drain after a long day at uni. Changed to a lvl 4 final, and I think another user just warned him using the same template for another article. Happy Editing! Dengero (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)