User talk:Slayer4x4

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Slayer4x4! I am WereSpielChequers and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

Ϣere SpielChequers 11:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am trying to keep Krazy Bee Rummy alive because it is my favorite form of rummy. Please feel free to make edits as you see necessary so that a better article may be established on the Krazy Bee variety of rummy. Also, congrats on the cookies! You must be doing a decent job. Locoyooper (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:WereSpielChequers

Hello, Slayer4x4. You have new messages at WereSpielChequers's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Slayer4x4. Thanks for the speedy deletion work you are doing; it's a very important activity! I did want to let you know, though, regarding Finikia, that current consensus holds that it is bad practice to tag articles for speedy deletion as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as users may be actively working on the article content. Ten to fifteen minutes is considered a good time to wait before tagging such articles under either of these criteria. Please note that before an appropriate waiting period is over, the articles should not be marked as patrolled, so that the wait does not result in the article escaping review at a later time. Nothing here is meant to apply to any other criterion; attack pages and copyright violations especially should be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Racconish^Tk 23:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I noticed you did not notify the AFD to the main contributor of Ron Cooper (bicycle framebuilder). Per WP:AFD, ‘while not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. One should not notify bot accounts, people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits, or people who have never edited the article. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use Duesentrieb's ActiveUsers tool or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. Use {{subst:AfD-notice|article name|AfD discussion title}}’.‎ Cheers, Racconish^Tk 12:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quaintrelle

If you feel like doing a bit of digging, try this one. I'm not quite up to my usual standard at the moment, but I feel there's something wrong with this. If you haven't got time, I'll get back to it. Possibly connected to Vinster. Peridon (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found that Pilgrimage thing anywhere? I looked and couldn't find anything reliable. For 1450, it looks faked up. BTW - I've moved your 'talk' from the article to the talk page. Happens to all of us sometime... Peridon (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the article: the Pilgrimage of the Lyt of the Manhode - or a 'quote' from it. Peridon (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I write in it at times (one character in particular insists on it) - but not as archaic as that! That looks like an ancestor of 'Fanny Hill'. I think the 'queynt' referred to is more likely to be usually written 'coint', and the 'queyntrelle' is the possessor of one... (Modern spelling of 'coint' not far different.) I would say that's a scan of something, but uncorrected. (Just got tomato paste in my keyboard. Must stop eating pizza while Wikipediaing.) So the ref is real, but I doubt the relevance. Peridon (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yurlyageni

I'm putting a db-reason on this - "This is a hoax. I can find scant evidence for this being a popular name, and virtually none for it as a name at all - except for a football forum where the user is located in Tasmania, but says he's in Liverpool, and where the user is claiming to be Nigerian. (The admin of the forum suspect this is not correct.) The only other edits of the author are in connection with soccer in Tasmania." Peridon (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read down at http://www.toffeetalk.com/index.php?/topic/22001-hi/ for a laugh... Peridon (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no... The scam proposed was posted by another member of the forum (who has over 2000 posts to his credit) and is purely a spoof to show he doesn't believe in Yurlyageni either. I've put the speedy request in at AfD now. Peridon (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Whatever

Plenty to choose from at this time of year. Peridon (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"painted turtle capture" is an intentional subpage.

Older section was cut to half the size as article was getting too long. New section at Pt is a summary. New article is the expanded content. Per wiki policy. See Lion for an example. Also, please see the talk pages on both pages that explain this change.

If you want to discuss the editorial specifics and still feel the page should not exist, please read both pages and I welcome your input.TCO (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Manuscript 512

Hello Slayer4x4. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Manuscript 512, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Slayer4x4! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Slayer4x4,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]