User talk:Mayalld/Archive/1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Mayalld. 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. |
|
Scouting WikiProject
Hi, there is a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scouting, you can find out more at the Scouting WikiProject page. DuncanHill 19:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Template:BS-table-canal/withcollapsibles, which you proposed for deletion, because the page you proposed for deletion was not an article, user page, or user talk page. If you still think the page should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it, as proposed deletion is only for articles, user pages, and user talk pages. Instead, consider using WP:TFD for this page. In some cases, a speedy deletion criterion may apply. Thanks!
- I've added a speedy tag to it. KTC 21:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
River Don Navigation
Because the link has been repeatedly spamed across a large number of pages.Geni 14:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not spammed across many pages evidences suggest otherwise. The template I dropped on Pennine's userpage told him to disscuss adding such links. They are free to do that. Untill they do I will continue to remove the links.Geni 15:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- see WP:SPAM#External_link_spamming removal of external link spaming does not require discussion. The only thing that account has done is spam wikipedia. I think we are beyond the reasonable doubt stage.Geni 16:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- All the links were to the same domain. No non link based content added to wikipedia. Therefor spam. Geni 18:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- see WP:SPAM#External_link_spamming removal of external link spaming does not require discussion. The only thing that account has done is spam wikipedia. I think we are beyond the reasonable doubt stage.Geni 16:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
History of the British canal system - Restoration
Hi Mayalld. Good work on cleaning up this section. I've done some further copyedited, but next week I'll need to follow my own advice and start referencing what I've added.Pyrotec 22:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Reminder
In most cases in discussions, don't forget to sign your name with ~~~~ Simply south 15:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Hi. Please can you try to complete an edit summary before you submit a page? You can change a setting in your preferences to prompt you if the edit summary is empty, which I find useful.
Having a summary allows editors with long watchlists, such as myself, to assess whether to look at the edit or not. For instance, when you are 'only' adding assessments to project banners, I don't need to check/respond to what you are writing.
Thanks - EdJogg 23:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. There are about 40 changes on my watchlist since midnight, and about 1/8th are due to your rating activity. So your summaries are reducing my workload by 1/8th! EdJogg 09:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't use words like 'a**es' too much like you did above (comment for EdJogg). Wikidont (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Removal of a valid message by yourself on SomeHuman's talk page
SomeHuman has removed your completely valid message on his talk page, on the (spurious) grounds that it went in between his and my reply to him. You may like to include it again. I would have done it, but am unsure whether this would be viewed in a good light by others. I am seriously getting tired of this editor's actions. DDStretch (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. He seems determined to back himself into a corner, and I'm moving ever closer to the view that this isn't going to be sorted without getting official about it. Mayalld 20:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Template map in Sandbox
Hi Mayalld. Thanks for your welcome to the UK Waterways Project. I've noticed that you have a template map in your sandbox. As this has the category tag in, it appears on Category:Waterway_routemap_templates. Hmallett 16:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed! Thanks Mayalld 16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Battling vandalism
Hi Mayalld, thanks for your quick action on my userpage protecting it from vandalism. I thank you, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Rating of Birmingham and Fazeley Canal article
Hi, I noticed that you have rated this article as B-class, and I have added quite a bit of history to it since, but it still says it is a stub on the main page. Is it ok to remove the stub category now? I am unsure of the protocol. Bob1960evens 17:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of the protocol either! I've removed canal sub templates where the UKW rating is above stub, but my rating of the article is based on it as a waterway article. As a west midlands article, the view may be different. On balance, I'd say that where an article is within multiple wiki projects, then I'd leave destubbing decisions to whoever rates the article there, but where there isn't a wikiproject, then we should destub completely. I suggest you remove the stub template.Mayalld 09:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Red cross symbol removal from ICU templates?
Would you please explain your removal of the red-cross symbol from ICU templates, and the odd statement regarding the Geneva Convention? You could have at least brought the matter up for discusion first, instead of unilaterally imposing your interpretation of this odd so-called "rule." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- We're discussing a change, as you can see on the project talk page. But your action was very heavy-handed, and I don't exactly see any Geneva Convention police knocking down Jimbo Wales' door to serve him with some sort of legal action. We have only your word to go on here, and given the nature of your action, I'm still a bit skeptical. Please, in the future, don't be so quick to rush in and do something like this. There's a fine line between being bold and being overly aggressive. It would have been much better to post a message along the lines of, "Hey! Are you guys aware of this?" plus an explanation, than to do what you did. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Sounds like you might be the Dave Mayall that I've debated newsgroups with in the UK hierarchy before, nice to see you're still about. pickaxe.demon.co.uk is no more, but I'm still alive and kicking, unlike some (Alan Hughes comes to mind). The other DM. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
speedy
Speedy A7 for notability can be used only for the types of articles specified in WP:CSD, real people, groups, bands, companies, web content. Not schools. Necessary to use PROD or AFD for them . DGG (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Curious set-up where speedy deletion of non-notable articles depends on what they aren't well known for though! Mayalld 14:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Fact tag
Take a look at the member list! Does [1] count as a source ? 81.149.250.228 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 05:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Cutting the mustard
It may not be Maille, but I believe that Margery Eagan cuts enough mustard now to avoid the abyss. - Crockspot 02:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Asserting importance
As a a gneral note, with respect to Talk:Anastasios Kyriakides: Asserting importance in the sense of WP:CSD#A7 is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. It should just assure that they possibly exist, but they do not need to be provided to avoid speedy deletion. Best regards --Tikiwont 15:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project.
The article Hemmerlin that you tagged with WP:CSD#A2 was - as afar as I saw - wriiten in French , but not copied form one of 'our' articles. --Tikiwont 15:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Senior moment! Looked at article, went to check in fr: got distracted, and carried on without looking at what was actually in fr: - my bad Mayalld 15:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Does not appear to meet speedy deletion criterion, since a claim of notability is made. If you want the article deleted, I suggest you take it to [{WP:AFD|articles for deletion]]. JoshuaZ 18:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I've never filed an SSP report myself, and I was just trying to figure out all the hoops one has to jump through to do so. Deor 13:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply
Do not remove information from case files (which are considerably sourced), thank you. - A Comment to it 14:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Long term abuse, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A Comment to it
- On the day that stopping you from rewriting the account of your own long term abusive editing becomes vandalism, I'll happily put myself forward for a ban Mayalld 14:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I R dave, i want becum admin, get shiny badge, then everyone will kno i speshul. - Tenderlambleg 14:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Au contraire, I have no particular desire for my own mop. Mayalld 15:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
SSP
Don't create separate ones, just add to the first one please. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Will do. Somewhat new to using the more advanced bits of TW, and lulled into a false sense of security, because it is so damned good the rest of the time! Mayalld 15:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 08:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Lori and Reba Schappell
I was going to do the same thing but it appears there was a WP:RM several months ago for this. I was trying to figure it out when you moved it back. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for seeing that they are a vandal and that their edits are far from constructive. There is currently a vandal report AND a suspected sock puppet case pending against them. Your warning helps in this regard. Thank you again. Irish Lass 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do you somehow get the feeling they think if they protest too much and behave oddly they think they'll be let back in? Have they never read Shakespeare? Oh, wait, I forgot who I was talking about.IrishLass 15:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
British Waterways and London
Hi, thanks for letting me know - reversion noted. I don't mind really, but it does seem a pity to have no association through the transport categories for London to BW at all. Maybe the individual London canal articles need to link into BW? Or a note in the category description? Not really my area, but it's a suggestion. All the best --Cnbrb 12:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from vandalizing this wikipedia page
For some reason, you are consistently vandalizing thewikipedia page for Beyond Race Magazine by calling for its deletion. Please refrain from this in the future. Beyond Race is a reputable, well-known magazine based in NYC that's presence on Wikipedia is justified. Please note Garland Jeffrey's Wikipedia entry, and Locksley's (the band) Wikipedia page which both make reference to the magazine. As this article is presenting purely factual information that is in the public domain, no references are really called for. As more specific information may be added, appropriate citatiopns will be used, i'm sure. Please note other magazine's Wikipedia pages such as Ozone magazine that are presenting similar information, in some cases, even going so far as to point out what stores the magazine can be found at. These pages are purely for advertising purposes where as this page is not. I am a reader of the magazine and as a reader and user of Wikipedia, I have the right to post an entry for this magazine. If you continue to vandalize the page, I will be forced to take further action. Thank you very much. Please respect others more carefully as you continue using Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samcoe42 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nominating for deletion is not vandalizing. It is a process to prove worth. You, Samcoe42, would do well to watch falsely accusing people. IrishLass 20:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have indeed nominated the page for deletion. I have done so, because I believe the magazine to be non-notable. That isn't vandalism, that is a legitimate process on Wikipedia. If you believe the magazine to be notable, you should contest the AfD. Simply removing the AfD notice will make no difference whatsoever, as the discussion will continue regadless. You don't ha a right to create an article. Editing is a priviledge, and one that can be withdrawn if abused. Wikipedia has standards of notability and verifiability in reliable sources which apply to all articles, and it isn't sufficient simply to claim that the information is in the public domain and that no sources are needed. I had never heard of the magazine, and have no way of proving that it exists, so sources are needed. If anything that is going on her is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia, it is you issueing threats Mayalld 22:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You're going to love this
Timing is everything. Spends two days trying to convince us he's not MaryPoppins then when the page is fully protected, he comes back. Can we all say "BUSTED!" Seriously, I thought that was hysterical. IrishLass 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Navigable aqueducts
I understand your concern about using the proper terminology. In a way, I was impacted by the German Magdeburg Water Bridge. Anyway, it seems we agree that a person looking for transportation over aqueducts should be able to find it. I went through my edit list and created Category:Navigable bridges with the pages I had listed before and commented at the page. It seems that the consensus is that some category will be created and that will save the good samaritan that makes the change some work in the end.
Carrie (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Re:futile edit war
I do not have any intentions of attacking other editors.My apologies for the language used and i assure you it will not happen again.But i also want to point out the fact that i request other editors like the user in question 74.13.29.56 not to use words like "stupid" which i consider to be offensive.
Yes-minister (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the speedy tag from Carers Alliance because it does have quite a few Google hits, but I've tagged it for notability. Somebody from Oz should let us know if they're notable. Corvus cornix (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
User: Artaxia
Hi, you flagged my article on the Carers Alliance for deletion. I've wikified and referenced, so I've removed the warnings (if that's okay). I'm new 'round here, but I'm picking it up quickly. There are further improvements to come - will you consider removing the article from the deletion consideration list?
Cheers, (Artaxia (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism
I have no qualms about making anyone who would censor me suffer agony beyond easy reckoning. I have done nothing but flaunt the stupidity of futile actions which only serve to rile my usually moderate temperament. My right to speak exactly how I feel is one that I sacrifice to no man, regardless of their intent. You have repeatedly attempted to remove my comments out of some delusional self-righteous crusade against what you appear to feel is naughty language. I have undone those actions repeatedly, I have not gone so far as to begin any vandalism whatsoever, I consider my actions to be justified and proper in response to your crude attempt at bullying me. 74.13.50.175 (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't take public arguments in which I feel morally superiour into the private realm, I continue raging on until I feel my point has been made, then I wander off surprised at how long it took to get that point made. This is not the first time I've had this /16 banned by an administrator with no understanding what-so-ever how to deal with a problem which could have easily been dealt with via discussion rather than attempts at censoring. Revertting away a person's factual data was an act you performed. Because you knew nothing of the topic you were editing, I do know about the topic, that is why I corrected and put in the discussion page the rationale for my actions. You then proceeded to remove those comments, and that is why this has gone on so long. 74.13.50.175 (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, the reason it has gone on so long, is that you persist in insulting people. You may feel morally superior, but your reliance on insults tells a different tale. Getting a /16 blocked is nothing to be proud of. Mayalld (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Who is the fool? I warned that such actions were futile with the simple /32 ban, do you really feel that actively trying to piss off someone who's already upset will ensure a good and lasting peace? I am not the one waving around the ban hammer instead of doing a good job at moderating the site's problems. The duty of an administrator is not to randomly bully people, it's to make them understand the situation and attempt to direct their energies towards a more productive path, your actions are simply fuel for a fire. 74.13.50.175 (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's tough to defend against an IP that varies so much. I guess all we can do is issue succesively longer blocks until the user gets though his head that his behavior is not tolerated here. Also, since we know the range that this user operates under, we can go ahead and block as soon as the user violates policy, rather than waiting for a final warning. Keep me posted about the situation, okay? GlassCobra 23:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're no better than Mayalld is GlassCobra. 74.13.50.175 (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're the one that insists on sinking to personal attacks constantly. GlassCobra 23:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- So, calling stupidity stupidty is now a personal attack, rather than an assessment of an act? My God, I must not have gotten the memo about how the entire language had been changed. Sorry, my bad. 74.13.50.175 (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it absolutely is a permanent attack. Wikipedia is trying to foster a sense of community though constructive criticism, not hostility. Read Wikipedia:Civility. GlassCobra 23:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- So, calling stupidity stupidty is now a personal attack, rather than an assessment of an act? My God, I must not have gotten the memo about how the entire language had been changed. Sorry, my bad. 74.13.50.175 (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think you mean personal, rather than permanent, but no, calling an action something is not calling the person who performed the action something, though it is directly reflective of the person. 74.13.50.175 (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Given the number of times that you have been pointed at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL it is a mystery that you, my anonymous friend, didn't get the memo. Calling any action stupid, regardless of whether you (or others) may think it stupid IS a personal attack within the definition employed by the Wikipedia polict which bans personal attacks Mayalld (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Opinions do not come into play when dealing with facts Mayalld, a stupid action is stupid. Something which is pointless, careless, unlearning, that is stupid. The act of reverting my correction of Yes-minister's stupid edits was stupid of you. It's not an attack, it's a fully realised and justified assessment of your action which proved to be careless, since you did not bother to know about the topic before making judgement that a non-registered user was wrong, and a registered user that had gone on a edit-fest making completely incorrect edits in many articles was right. You did something stupid, that doesn't mean you are unlearning or pointless, but your actions do show signs of not being willing to learn, and you have taken some rather pointless measures which have searved no purpose. 74.13.50.175 (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Incorrect. "Stupid" is ALWAYS a value judgement, and never a fact. Perhaps you might like to return to the beginning of all this, and look what I actually did. I did NOT revert your correction. I looked at both versions, and created a compromise version. Now, I could call you stupid for getting it wrong. I could accuse you of deliberately misrepresenting the events. However, I set some store by WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, so I will assume that you made an understandable mistake in your reading of my actions, which anybody could have made. That doesn't make you stupid. It does make your comments inaccurate. As to being willing to learn, have you yet read the policies that I have pointed you at, so that you can learn why a number of people believe you to be in breach of them? Mayalld (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Mayalld, I suggest that we follow Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore to the letter here. This user clearly has no interest in fostering a positive community here. We will follow up with the methods that have already been undertaken, and deal with this user in an appropriate manner. GlassCobra 23:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- How right you are!Mayalld (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Incense & Health
Thank you for your explanation, would you please review the discussion on the Incense talk page titled Incense & Health and give me more feedback.
BrerRabbit-at-Alices (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Artificially pumping up your # of contributions won't help you
Trying to increase the number of your contributions by going to new users' talk pages and teaching them about how Wikipedia is run is not the best way to become an adminstrator. Don't forget you are breaking "Don't bite the newcomers" WP:BITE. You will not become an admin by just focusing on the number of edits and breaking all the other rules in the process. That won't win you any hearts or minds, your application will be quickly rejected. Wikidont (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- What application? I haven't made an application to be an admin, and have no plans to do so. Mayalld (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
UK postcode districts
I was using the article itself. All I was doing was normalising the format the information was in. Thanks for correcting it. Postcodes (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- You may like to look at the python postcode district importer on the talk page. I've added to it to deal with ellipses. BTW, any idea why the ref tag I added isn't working? It's in one of the formats described in Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnote_referencing Postcodes (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Why?
Why have you erased what I've put on the LCT (Leeds college of Technology) page, since i'm a student there. SKYNET X1000 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Responded at SKYNET Talk page. SKYNET X1000 (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Although you previously erased the edit which I've done on the LCT article, is there a possibility if i could add stuff onto the Lawnswood High School article, i was once a former pupil their and although i haven't thrown the old school planner away inside contains an image of the school and the layout of every floor including rooms, and the reason is on the article there isn't any image of the school. SKYNET X1000 (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no problem!
Would it be possible to know "others" who are so busy deleting those articles. I initially wanted to create a single article, but it's response to a request by Wikipedia (can be automated) that I cut this article. But artcicle focus is not destroyed and agree glad to remove sous-articles. What do you think?
Bernard SOULIER (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. Given the author's request for patience per the talk page, I thought it might be appropriate to give him the time to bring it up to notability guidelines. Is there a proper way to delay deletions when the author claims a work in progress? Or are we to just tag it based on WP:CSD and let administrators deal with the contention? Thanks. AWeenieMan (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that I'm cynical here. I see any number of similar pleas for time every day from non-notable companies that simply haven't read the guidelines, and fondly imagine that if they add loads of content, their article about their NN company will suddenly become acceptable. Those that escape speedy just end up wasting more time editing an article that gets nuked within the week, and SALTed within two. I am in favour of swiftly killing such articles. Mayalld (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will keep this in mind. AWeenieMan (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note re Afd on Pappy's Fun Club. I'll contest in the appropriate places on the basis of notability. The subject is a notable UK sketch-comedy act, though I agree the article has insufficient detail to firmly establish this. I believe it should be allowed time to develop rather than be deleted only to be re-added later generating unnecessary re-work. Happy to do some development myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan D (talk • contribs) 02:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
What is sockpottery?
Hello, I see that you have left a message on my discussion page related to the above, or something that sounds like it (I have left the page). I have no idea what this is about, neither do I have the time right now to look into more bureaucratic details. I'm currently quite overwhelmed, but I think I remember your name and that york name on some article about collaborationism. If it is related to that, all the details are on the article's page and history. Regards, · Michel (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Your message, as indicated on top of my user page, will be erased in a couple of days at the latest. However, if you have a reply, please write it there anyway, as I have no time to peruse watch lists in five different languages.
Connells Point Rovers FC
Hi Mayalld,
I just reverted the Connells Point Rovers FC article to a point previous to some recent vandalism that occured shortly before you tagged it. I have no real knowledge of this sport and it's various levels of leagues, and have no opinion on whether or not this previous version asserts notability. Feel free to retag if you still feel it should be deleted. --Onorem♠Dil 13:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Defender
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| Nice work defending the Wiki. It is most appreciated. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC) |
SSP
Please file an WP:RFCU on the SSP User:Purple contribution case. Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In standby
I am awaiting your decision and I am at your disposal before finalizing the document. Can you please tell me if I work on one page or multiple pages. Please give me an answer as soon as possible. Sincerely.Bernard SOULIER 19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
RE: Fairfax Financial
Why have you set this article for deletion? The Wikipedia entry for Fairfax had been created about 3 years ago (Aug.13, 2004). Up'till now, the article sparsely described the company. After over 3 years, the article has gotten finally extended with lots of reference links, and now someone is suggesting it for deletion. I don't understand Wikipedia anymore. I'm an independent Wikipedia reader and I think that all information about this company has been compiled from publicly available sources on the internet, like S.E.C. EDGAR files, newspaper and magazine articles. IMHO, it's a shame to put this outstanding article for deletion. Please feel free to google every references about this company. If you can do it better, please feel free to make suggestions ?
For Disclosure: I'm an independent Wikipedia reader with no associations to the above mentioned company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IntrinsicV (talk • contribs) 12:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
RE
I'm terrible sorry for having caused any disturbances by posting an identical message about Fairfax in 3 places.
Regards, --IntrinsicV 13:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Please mark speedy-tagged pages as patrolled
Per WP:NPPLOG, please mark any page you've tagged for speedy deletion as patrolled. This will make other users know that the page has been dealt with, so they don't need to review it. Od Mishehu 14:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image
its not orphaned, I've uploaded it just 2 minutes ago, please give me some time, lol :) --Deprem 14:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Valhalla Belt
I referred if for a speedy and it has now been deleted. There are are a couple more names I thought may be sockpuppets too ealier. I will try and find them again and will post them here to see what you think if that is OK with you. Regards Hammer1980·talk 17:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- fine by me Mayalld 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why this cannot be posted
The following is information about a company; just as it would be for a person, a band, a country or anything else on Wikipedia. Please let me know why it cannot be posted and what I would have to change in order to get it approved. Thanks.
Based out of Gatineau (Canada) and Brussels (Belgium), MultiCorpora is a provider of multilingual asset management solutions designed to help corporations, government organizations and language service providers to translate global information and streamline their multilingual communications. MultiCorpora is exclusively dedicated to the development and support of Computer Assisted Translation (CAT) systems for translators- they do not sell translation services in competition with their customers.
When Gerry Gervais could not find adequate existing CAT technology in 1994 he founded MultiCorpora in order to find a solution. After 6 years of Research and Development the company finally launched MultiTrans™ 1.0 in 2000. This product introduced a new TextBase Translation Memory approach to CAT tools and caught the eye of many industry professionals. By 2004 the company had released version 3.0 which included Unicode support for all languages and when MultiTrans 4 was released in 2005, MultiCorpora had expanded to become a worldwide organization.
MultiCorpora continues to be one of the fastest growing CAT tool providers in the world today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daingreg (talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Afd for Pick Me Up Magazine
I've pointed this guy to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#What_about_article_x.3F for guidance. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
i apprieciate that you are what you are but...
please stay out of my business it is my own i will never cease to exist only talking to friends this is like our only place to talk since he dont have phone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sladeakakevin (talk • contribs) 17:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
do not bother me please
i am my own person i realize that i dont own wikipedia but thats no reason to badger me for needing somwhere to hang out with friends who have moved from town but i will delete your posts if you dont stop bothering me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sladeakakevin (talk • contribs) 17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 09:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You've been served
I don't think a notice has been posted, but you've been served. Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up :-) Mayalld (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- User is now blocked for 24 hours. Jeffpw (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You mentioned that I could help you by checking some of the URLs used as sources on the article. I dont want to go through all 23, you might have some more detail on what you wanted me to look at? Happy to help. -- Atluxity (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College
Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College, was decided to be kept. Whether or not you voted for this, your contribution to the CFD was valued.Thanks.--Sunderland06 17:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Random832
I'm not going to start stuff again today by going to his talk page but even after CelticGreen said publicly that she and I have talked and when I see inflammatory..... You know. Even after she said that last night, the boy was at it again this morning harping on her page. I removed it, archived it, as requested, but I think he needs a talking to. I won't stoop to his level of reporting him in a billion places, but maybe a word from an admin would help. He took what was posted on the Wikiquette and moved it to her page and harped on the percentage thing AGAIN. Help would be appreciated. Oh, and Grant was around again this morning. He's been chastised for now. We'll see what he bites back with. IrishLass (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
speedy
I had to decline the speedy on Coach ronald graham, since it claimed notability as an leading educator (& county commissioner), which altho not perhaps notable, is at least a claim. But it is clearly a reprinted obit., and you might want to check for copyvio. and re-nom on that basis. If you cant identify the source, consider a PROD tag. DGG (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there
Well, I don't actually recall adding a {{prod}} template there, but I do remember adding a {{notability}} tag. Thanks for the tip on {{prod-2}}, I will use it next time. Littleteddy (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
i added hangon
and no one paid any attention and deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah0000000ga (talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
but they deleted it within 1 minute, i didnt have a chance, it should have gone to AfDAh0000000ga (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
How is it advertising? Why is it not notable while, manhunt.net and adam4adam.com and gay.com, which dudesnudes has a similar marketshare therof notable and not ads?Ah0000000ga (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Truce?
Although we've been arguing for the last few days, could we just call a truce, through your comment previously saying I'm inexperienced, i've placed the adoption tag onto my userbox subpage, so that hopefully I'll gain experience, by someone. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've responded on my talk page. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Response made
Mayalld, i've responded at my talk page. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Alexander Paul Turner
I understand your proposition to delete this article and I agree with you, I just thought that he may have been legible for wikipedia. I'll google around for more sources. Cheers Mate! Thesydneyknowitall (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Happy holidays from SKYNET X7000!
Credits: This card was inspired by Macy's123, assistant of V's ShopUAA
You reported User:Destinyefine to WP:UAA as matching the name of a well-known living person - I don't think a deleted nn biography really counts as "well-known". (going on the assumption that was what you were talking about, since I couldn't figure out what else it might be) —Random832 14:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Crossings of the River Severn
I've re-applied User:Severnbore's edit to that article.
The old link (which has been there for a long time) takes you to a redirect page, which points you to the new link, so this was a simple housekeeping task to point the link correctly.
Mayalld (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. If the link is suitable, and meets WP:EL, that's fine. Severnbore's edits were reverted because he was spamming numerous articles in a systematic fashion. Dreadstar † 18:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 52 | 26 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| 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 (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:EW_death_cert.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:EW_death_cert.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jusjih (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank You
Thankyou for your nomination for the deletion of Eastern Housing Limited.--Farsad (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Nominating Criticism of kemalism for Deletion
I do not understand why did you nominated the article... All arguments are referenced. References are strong. I have opposed and rejected your nomination in the nominations page. I reject your arguments which you put for reason of deletion.
If you specify the argument, i can look again for an edit.
--Polysynaptic (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is not POV fork.
look at those articles:
the list goes on.
sorry for you thought i called you kemalist. i just meant a general attention. regards...
--Polysynaptic (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If Wikipedia wants to merge criticism articles with the article of the concept that is criticised, then ok.
--Polysynaptic (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Socially Construction of Articles
Yes, Wikipedia is a place where knowledge is socially or even sociocultural-ly constructed. that's why it is succesful, anyway. but my point is that if the concept is ideology then it is quite very hard to criticise since the opposing arguments will be neglected, or even get lost among fans of the ideology. may seem an anxious attitude but it indicates certain concerns at the same time.
thanks for coaching by the way.
regards...
--Polysynaptic (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello!
I am a new user here at wikipedia and i am still adjusting to the criteria of wikipedia to be able to create a more notable article.
If there are some things that does not fill the criteria I am begging you please help me to create a more reliable article.
Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirrodz (talk • contribs) 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion!
The references used in this are truly of an organization only because the Confraternity is just a small organization. It is currently applying for a Diocesan recognition so that it will be recognizable already here in the Philippines. But outside the Philippines the confraternity is already known for its Apostolate and actually there are some articles already written about it in Croatia. But as of now I cannot locate the Website from Croatia. If I will be given the chance I will improve it to show that there are also other references for this article.
I am very happy for the criticism that you have made because it is of big help to me to create this article more reliable and notable.
No hard feelings.
Thank you!
AfD nomination of 3 January 2008 Diyarbakir Bombing
An editor has nominated 3 January 2008 Diyarbakir Bombing, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 January 2008 Diyarbakir Bombing and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Lack of civility
Clearly, you and I do not share the same viewa as to notability of educational establishments. Yes, colleges are generally considered notable. That does not, however mean that every department or school within a college becomes notable. Feel free to take a contrary position to me on the issues in each case, but I would ask that you desist from your recent comments which appear to suggest that in nominating I am doing wrong. Your recent comments are straying to the edge of civility, and towards a personal attack upon me. That is not, I'm sure your intention. Mayalld (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, your actions regarding a series of articles betray a view of notability of school articles that not only differs from mine, but is in fundamental disagreement with the broad consensus of school notability in Wikipedia. Furthermore, the disturbing speed with which these actions have been taken, in apparent clear violation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and the mischaracterization of the justifications proffered for deletion (notably characterizing a sourced article for a major business school as "advertising") leaves a decidedly negative impression of your actions. I strongly suggest that you demonstrate the barest shred of good faith to those creating articles, and allow more than 60 seconds to elapse for articles to be created to meet your arbitrary perceptions of notability. Alansohn (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have acted in good faith. You may not agree with my views, but they are sincerely held. If consensus is against me, and remains against me, my proposals will inevitably fail. You, on the other hand, have been distinctly uncivil towards me on more than one occasion, and have continued to do so after I have asked you to desist. I have assumed good faith on your part, and assumed that incivility was not your intention. That assumption is becoming rather strained as you continue to be less than civil. Please "play the ball, not the man" Mayalld (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The excuse that inappropriate actions "will inevitably fail", fails to address the fundamental disruption caused by initiating the actions in the first place. The abundant bad faith perceived by the targets of your recent actions demonstrates the disturbing nature of the issues you persist in creating. I'd play the ball if there were only one; the fact that there are so many of these defective balls leads to the obvious conclusion that the problem is with the man. Alansohn (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- So, some people perceive bad faith. And what do you do? Do you caution them to assume good faith? No, you leap on the bandwagon and start making personal attacks. Then, when I challenge you, you do no more than justify your personal attacks and incivility (despite the fact that they cannot be justified). Mayalld (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The excuse that inappropriate actions "will inevitably fail", fails to address the fundamental disruption caused by initiating the actions in the first place. The abundant bad faith perceived by the targets of your recent actions demonstrates the disturbing nature of the issues you persist in creating. I'd play the ball if there were only one; the fact that there are so many of these defective balls leads to the obvious conclusion that the problem is with the man. Alansohn (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have acted in good faith. You may not agree with my views, but they are sincerely held. If consensus is against me, and remains against me, my proposals will inevitably fail. You, on the other hand, have been distinctly uncivil towards me on more than one occasion, and have continued to do so after I have asked you to desist. I have assumed good faith on your part, and assumed that incivility was not your intention. That assumption is becoming rather strained as you continue to be less than civil. Please "play the ball, not the man" Mayalld (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Harry Potter Lexicon
MATTierial (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)I was reading through the article on the lawsuit against the Harry Potter Lexicon, and i noticed it seems peculiar that Rowling and Warner Brothers would bring up such a suit against The Lexicon when books of a similar nature have already been printed, why is the lexicon’s version more of a threat to Rowling’s own Encyclopedia then any other, Especially a New York Times best seller, as is the example shown (go to the search inside icon and look at the back cover).
I only thought it would be a fact worth noting, since I was directed to you.
- The point is that we do NOT add coments into the body of articles Mayalld (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if I offended you, I like many others, am new here, therefore I did not fully understand the whole concept of editing, nor had any knowledge of this user talk. I again appologize for any violations I may have acted.MATTierial (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I speedy closed this AfD since another one for the same subject was already open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Palm Tree. Just letting you know. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers! looks like two of us had the same idea simultaneously (the other AFD must have been added in the second between TW checking for another AFD, and adding the new AfD Mayalld (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Myspace69
Care to tell me why an relevent article that I splent plenty of time on was tagged for "Speedy Deletion?"
Bluetooth advertising
I agree the article was a coatrack to spam a product. I've rewritten the article from scratch. Please review and consider if you might want to withdraw the nomination in light of the rewrite. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluetooth advertising -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
China at Chess Olympiads
While NP patrolling, I noticed that User:Gollenaiven has now created China at the 23rd Chess Olympiad and China at the 24th Chess Olympiad; it appears that the user intends to continue creating these articles for every year up to the present. Since you've nominated China at the Chess Olympiads and China at the 37th Chess Olympiad for deletion, I thought I'd give you a heads-up on this. (I've left a note on Gollenaiven's talk page as well, indicating that it might be a good idea to wait for the AfD results before creating any more articles in the series.) Deor (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Riverside Public school
Why would you put the article Riverside public school For Deletion? I've worked hard over the christmas break to update it so it can qulaify to be A wikipedia Article? Now you come and delete it? What do you have against the school?Mofeed.sawan (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Crain's Manchester Business
I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Crain's Manchester Business. The reason is:
- CSD A7 doesn't apply to newspapers
For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see the article was later speedy deleted as an advertisement - G11. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:Snow
Greetings,
WP:SNOW is there to stop a process that is obviously going to fail. I included in the closure my rational (the fact the the encylopedia britannica has an article) and after closing the AfD I proceeded to address the concernes that were innitially raised in the AfD (Mainly the lack of sources). I hope this is helps? Fosnez (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Your original nomination of the article included:
- "Organisation appears to be non-notable"
- Britannica article more that shows that infact the organisation is notable.
- In your opinion. I don't believe it does.
- "No 3rd party sourcing in article"
- {{tl:sofixit}}
- I%
Pagemove
I moved Wikinger's talk page, because I thought, that if he is banned (proof here) - anyone is then allowed to modify every contribution of banned user, even rebrand it into useful redirect, as I did it. CBMIBM (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above move of User_talk:Wikinger has managed to eradicate the page history. The page it's been moved to has now been deleted - presumably an admin needs to do some cleanup? In any event, Wikinger's userpage should also be reverted, as his block has expired, and despite WP:AGF I'm not entirely convinced by CBMIBM's assertion that he is not Wikinger. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 14:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Giles Benett, thank you for performing final cleanup. I'm really not Wikinger, but new inexperienced user. CBMIBM (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The page history isn't lost :-) I moved it back to User talk:Wikinger/recovered to ensure that the history was retained, whilst getting it out of mainspace. I then SD'd the resulting mainspace redirect. It will need admin intervention to get it back into its proper place. Mayalld (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- SD of the current talk page requested to allow the original to be moved back in Mayalld (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- (EC) It meets my definition of "lost" - namely I can't find it when I want it and it is neither where I thought it would be nor where it should be! Much like my glasses, most of the time. ;-) Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 14:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- (smiles) Very true. As soon as CBMIBM's version has been deleted, I'll move the original back into position Mayalld (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- (EC) It meets my definition of "lost" - namely I can't find it when I want it and it is neither where I thought it would be nor where it should be! Much like my glasses, most of the time. ;-) Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 14:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- SD of the current talk page requested to allow the original to be moved back in Mayalld (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The page history isn't lost :-) I moved it back to User talk:Wikinger/recovered to ensure that the history was retained, whilst getting it out of mainspace. I then SD'd the resulting mainspace redirect. It will need admin intervention to get it back into its proper place. Mayalld (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is not needed. Wikinger lost his password and his account is really dead - proof here CBMIBM (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- That isn't relevant. As Wikinger didn't amend those pages himself, and as he didn't request you to do so either, the correct position is that they should be restored to how they were before you started messing with them Mayalld (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I answered to false assumption of Giles Benett above, Mayalld, thanks for reverting my inexperienced changes. Additionally, this additional warning that you gave me was unneded, because it was about pagemoves to nonsensical titles, frow which I resigned. CBMIBM (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The 3rd warning was for talk page refactoring, which you were doing. Mayalld (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please look here. I cannot be Wikinger, because similar IP was used too by Al-Bargit/Aminullah, and I never was, never am and never will be interested in Islam. CBMIBM (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't reveal the IP addresses of contributors (although there is a process that can be used to get a check done as to whether 2 users are coming from the same IP. So nothing there tells us anything about whether you are or are not Wikinger. I really don't care one way or another. My interest in this is simple. If you edit responsibly, all will be well. If you continue to disrupt, I will ensure that you cease to do so. Mayalld (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thus I will edit responsibly. Don't worry. I simply was new user. CBMIBM (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't reveal the IP addresses of contributors (although there is a process that can be used to get a check done as to whether 2 users are coming from the same IP. So nothing there tells us anything about whether you are or are not Wikinger. I really don't care one way or another. My interest in this is simple. If you edit responsibly, all will be well. If you continue to disrupt, I will ensure that you cease to do so. Mayalld (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please look here. I cannot be Wikinger, because similar IP was used too by Al-Bargit/Aminullah, and I never was, never am and never will be interested in Islam. CBMIBM (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The 3rd warning was for talk page refactoring, which you were doing. Mayalld (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I answered to false assumption of Giles Benett above, Mayalld, thanks for reverting my inexperienced changes. Additionally, this additional warning that you gave me was unneded, because it was about pagemoves to nonsensical titles, frow which I resigned. CBMIBM (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- That isn't relevant. As Wikinger didn't amend those pages himself, and as he didn't request you to do so either, the correct position is that they should be restored to how they were before you started messing with them Mayalld (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Giles Benett, thank you for performing final cleanup. I'm really not Wikinger, but new inexperienced user. CBMIBM (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)