Please leave talk here.
VandalProof
You were turned down because you only have a total of 310 edits at this time; once you reach 500, you can reapply. Thanks! Master of Puppets That's hot. 02:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, and it isn't anything personal; just there are precautions we need to take before giving out the tool (its pretty powerful). Cheers, Master of Puppets That's hot. 02:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- You beat me here Master of Puppets, I was busy helping a user out who was having technical difficulties with VandalProof. Incidentally the above is not completely correct, you need 250 article edits (you have 149), not 500 total edits. Happy editing Prodego talk 02:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, just noticed that on the requirements page. Thanks for correcting me, though! Master of Puppets That's hot. 02:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I wish I could do anything to prevent vandals myself, but I'm not an admin! If a vandal persists, try reporting the IP/username at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Stephenb (Talk) 08:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Villa Players Statement
It's on the BBC Sport website. That's good enough for me. I'll reinstate it if you don't mind. Regards Martyn Smith 12:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Reply left on your talk page. Regards. Gretnagod 12:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah ok, we've got the Birmingham Evening Mail asserting that it wasn't the group thing that the BBC says it is. I'm just as likely to believe the Mail as the Beeb, so ok, it's not quite yet been established as the absolute truth I thought it was at first. I'll leave it for now, cheers Martyn Smith 14:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Please consider fighting for OBOT
Just to say im glad you though the OBOT page was funny, but also it is a serious game. please help keep it alive on wikipedia, the greatest website on earth. User: J_man2211 16:23 30 November
Your vandalproof application
Sorry, you don't yet have the minimum 250 edits in the mainspace. Just make a few more and you'll probably reach it by tonight. When you have around 250 reapply. Sorry for the inconvenience --frothT C 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The Onions
I would appreciate it if you could encourage your fellow admins to not delete the onions page. thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jenna741 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm taking the speedy tag off that article. I do see what you mean on the talk page about many players who are now 23 once were with Premier League clubs, but that seems to me to be enough assertion of notability to save it from the simplistic criteria of speedy deletion as non-notable. Probably putting it up for AfD would be the best way to go; that would probably attract interest from the football Wikiproject to get some clearer policy on what is, and isn't, a notable footballer. Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's an interesting one. Perhaps the criterion should be "played for a Premiership (or whatever) team with some degree of notability - scored a goal, bit the ref, saved against Drogba, (again, whatever) - before disappearing into obscurity". After all, playing ten minutes as a sub then ending up next season at Hendon Town is sort of an assertion of not being notable, in a way. I know what I'm talking about as a Newcastle United supporter - Roeder is just about putting on the bench the bloke who sells pies at half time (although come to think about it that would be notable :-) ). Regards, Tonywalton | Talk 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Gretnagod! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. frothT C 03:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Aston Villa Article
Hi Gretnagod, I think you are right about the whole 'notable' - 'greatest' player debate - but I think to not try to draw up a list would be impossible, all articles have to discriminate because they are supposedly (hopefully) written by someone with an informed knowledge. Obviously with footballers there is a wide scope for opinion!
In terms of what is happening at the moment with the suggested changes to the subheadings, the date ranges are not informed, they do not fit into any era of the club's history. Surely every club must have it's own history, and therefore it's own subheadings in telling that story. I take the point that some of them could be less emotive, but to do away with them altogether seems abit rash. What are your thoughts?
Villafanuk 20:36 22 March 2007
WikiProject Kent Collaboration Results
Why are you deleting Montagu Square?
This is annoying, I'm gradually adding info to the article. Yesterday you wrote something on my Talk page then removed that comment. Today I notice the Montagu Square article has gone. I suppose you must have deleted it, which was confusing. Why is it necessary to delete such an article so quickly? Can you not wait at least 24 hours to see if it gets acceptable? -- Hotlorp 01:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for signing my autograph book! Bmg916Speak to MeLeave Your Mark 13:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
We were
No problem for me, just decided to undo yours cause we had choicen different ways to do it. Wonder how long the admins will use to get rid of that one by the way;-) (hopefully this don't count as pointless talking!) :-) Greswik 18:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Your AIV report
Removing speedy deletion tags isn't, in general, considered vandalism. Any editor other than the creator of an article may remove a speedy tag if they don't think it applies, and it's not supposed to be readded. -Amarkov moo! 18:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You recently tagged this article for speedy deletion under criterion A7 - no assertion of notability. I've removed the speedy because there is a claim of notability. If you still think the article should be deleted - and you have a strong case - please consider WP:AfD. Thanks! Natalie 19:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- That makes way more sense - thanks for letting me now. I've deleted it again and will WP:SALT it, since it's been created 4 times in 48 hours or so. Natalie 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It was brought bck because i put a link tht confirmed its notability which was the reason it was going to be deleted in the first place. It was wrong to delete and i am informing administrators to bring it back.Martini833 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
RE: Hulk Hogan
I've deleted the whole section as trivial fancruft. It's not really not notable, especially when you put it up against the Undertaker's WM winning streak. Bmg916SpeakSign 14:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick query as to whether there is anything specific that you would like added to the Whitstable article as it is looking good at the moment. However, I do feel the section on the Great Fire of Whitstable is given undue prominence Thanks Duke of Whitstable 14:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you feel anything has been missed out, feel free to add it. You'll be more of an expert on Whitstable than I am. I might move the Great Fire section to its own article. Epbr123 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
hello
Just out of sheer curiosity...do you happen to live in Whitstable? Haha I live in Herne Bay RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)