User talk:Litherlandsand

I may remove comments at my discretion (per Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments.

Please do not use offensive or fake signatures, as these will be hard to remove from the page history. Advertising and spam are not allowed on this talk page, and will be reverted immediately.

These terms above do not violate Wikipedia:Ownership of pages in any way, these are just compliant with Wikipedia policies.

This page in a nutshell: Ensure basic civility are met, with no personal attacks.

My alternate accounts:

User:Placename Hlio - for Medieval and Roman stuff.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Litherlandsand, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — Ched (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bracelet, Lancashire

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bracelet, Lancashire, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unable to prove the hamlet exists. The AA, multimap.co.uk, Wikimapia and Google Maps don't have any trace of it. The only reference I can find that it may exist is http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GxENAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=bracelet+lancashire+hamlet&source=web&ots=2JC_Cy3guC&sig=yecYObKd2NnI_cELDjn22Cxr7Gk&hl=en&ei=yvSbSf7GH9zFjAf-49m9BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result. If it's to be kept, it really needs some location information and/or map coordinates

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CultureDrone (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stand, Greater Manchester

Thanks. I added the above to the disambiguation list for Stand. You may want to have a look at Prestwich-cum-Oldham. Many of the sources I've used in the Radcliffe article will be relevant to Stand, as will much of the information in the Whitefield, Greater Manchester article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I see you have recently created one or more new stub templates or categories. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. This helps to reach consensus about whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries, where comments are welcome as to any rationale for this stub type. Please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! Grutness...wha? 23:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NSW articles

Hey, Litherlandsand (i'm not sure if i should be replying here or back on my talk page), yes i would be interested in helping out with editing NSW articles. I can't promise to be regular, but just drop me a line with any suggestions & i will certainly have a look. ciao David Woodward (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Jutta Dierks

A tag has been placed on Jutta Dierks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jenuk1985 | Talk 08:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Doraly Rosa

A tag has been placed on Doraly Rosa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jenuk1985 | Talk 08:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Warning

No worries. Since Alexandra Burke is a living person we need to be extremely careful what we write about her, and anything - particularly anything controversial - should be cited so that other readers can verify it. Cheers, and apologies for labelling you a vandal! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock block

This blocked user (block log | active blocks | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I am not Sunholm, nor have I even heard of the user (well, I've heard of Sunholm, but only as an Internet username operated by probably unrelated individuals. I am a legitimate user from another wiki that is nonwikimedia. I do not know why I have been accused of being a sockpuppet, and I am genuinely disappointed I have been treated this way. I only came here to make helpful edits and was not treated properly by the admin.
I am not editing on behalf of anyone else, only editing myself. I am only here to help, and have no malicious intentions, no vandalism intentions, only positive things. I have read the guide to appealing blocks and do not want to do anything wrong."

Decline reason: "Per Either way's response I am not comfortable unblocking here. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and use the {{unblock}} template again. Abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Thank you, Daniel. I do not know why people are not applying WP:AGF to me. Yes, I've been here before, but that was 4-5 years ago, and things were so different back then.

I use this username on two non-Wikimedia-run wikis, and I should add that the user on my userpage that I linked to - isn't a sockpuppet either, nor a meatpuppet. The relevant diff. I have known him off-wiki for years now, and just because we edit similar areas, or have overlapping interests, doesn't mean that we're one user - and I only want to do things above board. As it is, I only want to do benign stuff here. --Litherlandsand (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Either_way&diff=273250869&oldid=273202411

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Litherlandsand (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See response below.

Decline reason:

This way of questioning a block rationale is very typical of the sockmaster in question. On balance, it strikes me that this is a sock of Sunholm and I'm not comfortable with unblocking. ➲ redvers ^{sit down next to me} 11:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have read that, but I can politely say that the user Either way mentioned is not a sockpuppet of anyone. If either me or him were, then why would we fully disclose our editing histories? Just because I had a list of IPs does not make me another account of an editor. I don't want to offend anyone either, but I have entirely different reasons for being here. --Litherlandsand (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I also reviewed this account and I completely agree this is an extremely transparent and obvious sock of Sunholm/Sunstar/Solumeiras/Sunstar NW XP/etc and I fully endorse and support Either Way's block. The edit history, the language and style of talk page posts, the language of the block appeals, the "not socks" userpage ramblings, etc are all typical of this banned user. Sarah 11:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Osmium

Hi Litherlandsand, you put an expert attention tag on the osmium page in mid february, and now I wanted to ask what a expert should do if he is at the page? Anything special or only general raeding? --Stone (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alexandra Stamler

The article Alexandra Stamler has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. One minor role, no independent coverage.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SummerPhD (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]