This is an archive of past discussions with User:5 albert square. 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.
MayhemMario wants to know when your birthday is. If you could, please, add your date and month to Mario's userpage underneath the title 'Calendar', it would be much appreciated.MayhemMario17:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC) 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Elections are currently underway for our Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days and ends on June 30, 23:59 UTC. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! There is also a referendum to appoint a Coordinator Emeritus. Cast your vote today.
Why did you semi-pro an article that has never been IP editted when the "content dispute" is the article creator wanting to keep unreferenced outlandish claims and unreliable refs and remove fact tags? The-Pope (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
A request at WP:RFPP because of an edit war. I don't think the other editor is auto confirmed so they shouldn't now be able to edit the article. If you wish I can change it.--5 albert square (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
But you've locked down the wrong version! The other user needed a block for inappropriate use of reverting and inappropriate request for protection. Did you actually view the diffs? Oh well, only a few days left until the Afd gets rids of the whole thing. The-Pope (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
IDIAZNARMI (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Being A Melvin
apparently yesterday you removed "Being A Melvin" a term supposedly a blatant hoax. Whilst your observation may seem accurate for people who do not live in west coast area of Vancouver it is an actual term created by a kid from surrey I am not sure i can remember the name. It went Ray Hassan or Karan or something it is actually a widely used slang term and I hope you do put the article back on wikipedia.
Thanks for the cookies. :) Do you think what you, AP and JG talked about on Rebecca Robinson's page should be brought into affect now? I noticed you had done some moving about, then remembered about the discussion. I really thing by looking at the serach results on google, that Napier should be her name here.Rain the 1BAM21:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I moved the Rebecca Robinsons on Wikipedia about a bit so they're all compliant with Wikipedia rules now. Wikipedia says if 2 pages have the same name then a disambiguation page needs to be set up. Quite proud of the tidy up I did tonight, whilst I had the broom out I also moved Alan Fletcher to the correct spot!
No, I now don't think we should remove Rebecca's page. I'm sure when she left she was still being credited as Robinson on the credits. Besides just because she absolutely loathes Paul and even wanted him dead, doesn't mean to say she'll change her surname!--5 albert square (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, it's annoying, I wasn't actually the blocking admin for the other IPs but I do remember the name being mentioned quite a few times this week. Unfortunately though I now can't find the IP addresses though. Sorry.--5 albert square (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Yum yum!
JuneGloom07 has eaten your cookies! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating them. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:plate}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat the cookies with {{subst:munchplate}}!
That's ok, I was just doing that just as you messaged last time around lol. It shouldn't have been in breach of 3RR as the IP is editing against consensus and that can be deemed as vandalism. If we changed duration every time someone left for a bit, some characters durations would probably be longer than the article! --5 albert square (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
MayhemMario has eaten your cookies! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating them. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:plate}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat the cookies with {{subst:munchplate}}!
Hello 5 albert square, you have recently blocked DumbHead456 because he was attacking Hoo man and ClueBot Commons by saying they are "Dumbheads". Also, another reason that explains why he was blocked is that he is a sock puppet.
Well, when I cited a reason I actually chose personal attacks because of the name calling on Hoo man's page but if you look back through all the edits made by the user none of them are constructive. I don't understand your question.--5 albert square (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. I think that the personal attacks reason is more important than sock puppetry.
Well I'm afraid I don't know who's sock they would be or I would've filed the report and investigated myself. I only saw this vandalism. If you know who they're a sock of, please report it to WP:SPI, thanks.--5 albert square (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Well, I just put my first message here just to notify you that you recently blocked that user due to personal attacks. Also, I was just going to say about the sock puppetry that I could be wrong. And finally, the reason why I did this toAmiDaniel is because the reason he gave to the blocked IP user was not a good reason. Eric567 (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, I don't feel it necessary to remove his comments though. I'm mostly just shocked that the user seems to have completely lost his rag for no reason. I thought the message I wrote on his talk page was appropriate to the circumstances? U-Mos (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought that was ok too. It's just I think you said you were offended by the edit summary left on the Waterloo Road article so thought I'd ask you if you wanted the one removed from your page then. Let me know if you change your mind :)--5 albert square (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The latest GOCE backlog elimination drive is under way! It began on 1 July and so far 18 people have signed up to help us reduce the number of articles in need of copyediting.
This drive will give a 50% bonus for articles edited from the GOCE requests page. Although we have cleared the backlog of 2009 articles there are still 3,935 articles needing copyediting and any help, no matter how small, would be appreciated.
We are appealing to all GOCE members, and any other editors who wish to participate, to come and help us reduce the number of articles needing copyediting, as well as the backlog of requests. If you have not signed up yet, why not take a look at the current signatories and help us by adding your name and copyediting a few articles. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words".
You cannot remove the "User:" prefix from the title of a user page, if that's what you mean, as it is there to make it clear that the page is a user page and not an article - I've left you some information on your Talk page about the article you are trying to create -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Done, removing Mehmet's image saying there's too many images when there's only 1 in the entire article?! I was going to just warn him but his edits to the EastEnders articles proved it is just vandalism only. I think I've also gone deaf from the edit summaries :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,5 albert square,realy I do not understand what is going all that,the image has bee taken from
facebook,and it is not copy right,if it is so,please remove the image immediatly,I am not expertise
of wikipedia system,I do not know how to deal all this.I also removed the tags from artcle mainspace,mistakely,I was thinking someone has tagged old tags,I removed those,but Mr.
User:Biker Biker become extremely angry,in result he put also deletion tag on article,with other tags,without knowing that the article has already consensus by User:NoleloverUser:JeepdayUser:Brianhe,and subject's position and explanation is very clear on all talk pages.I understand the wikipedia policies,it should be applied on every subject,I think there are hundred
of articles which contradict the wikipedia policy eidtors should pay heed to them too.I do not know what you can help me in this regard.ThanksEhsan Sehgal (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, people are marking your images for deletion because they don't have the correct copyright information on them. The one I tagged, there is no license stating that it's been released into the public domain. That kind of image needs to be in the public domain before it can be used in any articles.
The best way to upload an image to Wikipedia is via Wikimedia Commons. You can create an account at Wikimedia Commons by clicking here. Once you've logged in, click on "Upload File" on the left hand side of the screen (here) and that will give you step-by-step instructions on how to upload a file to Wikimedia Commons and then transfer it to Wikipedia. Once you've done that you will then be able to link it up to the Wikipedia page.
You say that the image is on Facebook. Did you take the image personally? If you did then it should be fine to use on Wikipedia, if not then you will only be able to use it if you've got permission to do so from whoever took the image. If you don't own the image then you may be able to get the person who does own it to release it under another license so it can be used on Wikipedia. I suggest that you look at Wikimedia Commons as that will have more information on the various licenses available.
Like I say, if you look at File:Alanfletcher1-1.jpg that displays all the information there that images being used in a living person article should display. You should give a short summary explaining a little more about the photo and, if you're the copyright holder then you need to display the license showing that as the copyright holder you release the image into the public domain.
You can also ask at the Commons Help Desk if you've got any queries on the images.
hello 5 albert aquare, image belong to me,it is no copy right,it is from web,but I do not know
which tag I must chose and how to fix it.Can you help me to do this for me.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Ehsan - if your daighter does not already have Flickr - ask her to try and make you one. Then if you get that far - you can upload any images you like there, that you own. A 5 albert square said - you can then choose either of those options upon image uploading. Or you can access your photostream and change the value of the image so it is not copyrighted to yourself afterward.RaintheOneBAM21:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I am wondering why you revdelled part of Molly Windsor as a copyvio, as only the image used was a copyvio rather than the actual wikitext added to the article. I won't reverse what you did though as what is there is not really useful. This article has had a bit of a history of non free image addition! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah I revdelled it because of the image being an obvious copyvio, I thought that was the best thing to do and kind of erred on the side of caution. Sorry.--5 albert square (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean changes "like that" to a BLP? It wasn't insulting or derogatory or anything. All I did was add a fact from the Duke U website that his specialty was artificial intelligence. And you threaten me with a block? Instead of a welcome, I get attacked and threatened by two people after about 4 edits. And all that other guy does is use some tool he calls Huggle to mindlessly revert other users. He doesn't seem to have added any content at all in ages. This is a great way to drive new users away. Why does anyone stay around?PumpkinSky (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Pfalzweyer edits are not about a person. It was about people per square km. What wiki rule does that violate? I see sentences all over wiki with no refs. Why am I being hounded? PumpkinSky (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I dunno about the edits to Pfalzweyer as I've never even heard of that page before. However the edit I reverted on another page you said that the person specialised in something. If you're making claims like that you need to back them up with a reliable source. I wasn't saying that your edits were insulting or derogatory, I've never said that. I just meant that if you're adding information saying someone specialises in something it needs to be backed up.--5 albert square (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I still don't get what "like that" means. For Pfalzweyer, can you look at the edits? Also, keep Nensnema or whatever his name is off my back. In Loveland, NONE of the three paragraphs has a specific ref. Why aren't they removed too? Why just my edit? The fact I put in is from the same "source" already listed. This makes no sense whatsoever.??????? PumpkinSky (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It was reverted because it's an unreferenced statement, you haven't provided proof of where you got the figure of 130 people from. That's why it was reverted.--5 albert square (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the Loveland issues nor what "like that" means. Nor why there are tons of sentences on wiki with no refs but why a brand new user is being singled out instead of welcomed. Logically by what you and Nansema say EVERY sentence in both articles should be removed but weren't. Why? Am I being hounded and stalked? You both claim every sentence needs a ref but your actions and what is in thousands of other articles don't back that up. PumpkinSky (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
By like that I meant when you make edits to change figures etc. Stuff that can be disputed on Wikipedia needs to be backed up by a reliable source so information can be verified. Please read WP:RS and wp:verifiability as they really do explain everything. You're really not being hounded, personally I've been trying to give you some advice. I'm also not saying that every single sentence in Wikipedia needs to be backed up, just stuff that can be disputed. For example I could edit Lothian Buses and say that they're worth £200 million. If I don't provide a reference and you look at the article without knowing anything about the company, how would you know if I was telling the truth or not?
That's better but still doesn't explain why in both articles the rest of them, pre-existing, was not removed. By the statements you and nesnema both made they should be. Loveland is especially A-MAZ-ING because the fact I added is in the SAME SOURCE listed already in the article. This is totally inexplicalbe. Yes, you're at least trying to explain and I appreciate that. PumpkinSky (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
If it's the same source, you still need to quote it again beside what you've added to the article. Otherwise it looks unreferenced. For whole sections of articles that are unreferenced no you shouldn't delete them in the first instance. Instead try Google searches to find references for them. If you can't find references then put a citation tag next to them which indicates references need to be found. The template for the citation tag is [citation needed]--5 albert square (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
You are ENTIRELY missing the point. My edit was removed for "not having a ref". Why wasn't the rest of the articles? Nasnema is being entirely hypocritical. He should have removed the entire article. Why didn't HE look up stuff on google instead of mindlessly removing just one part? Please see talk about this on my talk page too. PumpkinSky (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)...PS there are now other complaints about this on Nasnema's talk page. You really should look deeper. PumpkinSky (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know why additions to the other article you mention weren't reverted as I wasn't the reverting editor for those cases. However in the cases of those articles, the citation tag I've given above would suffice. As for Nasnema's edit I don't know why the information wasn't looked up on Google, you would need to ask Nasnema about that. Sorry.--5 albert square (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. You now seem to see my point. Believe, I've made several posts on Nasnema's page (others are complaining about his actions too) but he's ignoring me. I'm taking that as an admission of guilt/fault on his part unless he decides to speak up.PumpkinSky (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Since the edit was reverted as being in good faith, I don't think bumping up the warning level of his talk page was appropriate. Yes, there has been a lot of hot words, but I don't think that the edits that he's done have gone up to that level of Vandalism.Naraht (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
When I tagged it I didn't see any references. With the others if they're created after March 18 2010 then yes it would also apply to them.--5 albert square (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to the new EE newsletter! This is a new thing that I am trying out, so make sure once it's out, give me feedback! If you want to recieve the newsletter, just tell me on my userpage.
We are looking for new editors for the newsletter for future issues. If you are interested in helping shape the newsletter to focus on new areas or submit individual stories, we can use your help! The newsletter can be edited by all members of the project, and we are always seeking new volunteers. Instructions will be provided on how to develop the newsletter each month. Any interest and/or questions can be submitted to MayhemMario.
One EE article is available for review at WP:GAN. This is Yusef Khan. As members of this project are more familiar with WP:EE guidelines for EE articles, input at these reviews can be helpful for determining if they meet all good criteria. Other articles can also be found at WP:PR looking for helpful comments.
Based on views, the top five most popular character articles from our project this month were: Mandy Salter, Syed Masood, Tanya Branning, Ronnie Mitchell, and Janine Butcher. For a list of our project's top 500 most popular articles, see here. Consider helping to improve one of these articles that is seen by thousands to millions of people each month.
Remember to always add the {{WikiProject EastEnders|class=}} template to a EE article's talk page so the project can get a better idea of what work still needs to be done. If you believe that an article should be assessed at a certain class assess the article yourself (it's not too difficult to determine the basic classes such as stubs, categories, or lists).
Spotlight Update: One EE article has reached GA status in June 2011.
Remember that any editor can give the WikiProject EE Award to another WP:EE member. If you do present this award, please make mention of it here or tell one of the newsletter editors who will then include it in the next issue.
Please add your name to the member list if you have not already.
If you've just joined, add your name to the Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered to your userpage. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 2 – July 2011). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
That's ok, just when I put the first blocking message on (the one you see on the contributions page) it only allows me to choose username block or vandalism, not both, whereas on the users talk page I can tell him he's been blocked for both. In this case it's obvious though looking at the edits he made to Inspector Gadget that he's meaning his username in a profane way and he's not going to contribute constructively. Give me one sec and I'll go back and alter Gadget's page history now :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Cher Lloyd
Thanks for protecting the page. Your revision to take the vandalism away has taken it back to a version that was a redirect So now article effectively do sent exist. There is an ongoing debate been started on the talk page re this. Which is effectively meaningless as if its agreed that it should not be a redirect it cant be changed. Thanks for any help you may be able to give. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, yes there was a reason for taking it back to that revision. With only one single, I'm afraid she's not notable enough for her own article just yet. Actually part of the reason I fully protected the article and for so long was because people are constantly doing this. Wait for her to release more singles.--5 albert square (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Irrespective of your opinion the debate must be allowed to go ahead it was only reported for admin assistance due to the degrading nature of the vandalism not notability. With the redirect in place it leads you away from the talk page so unless already bookmarked people whils not be given the chance. The amount of users that have reverted from the redirect to the article and sources available would indicate she is notable and to not allow the debate to proceed is not in good faith. If she genuinely isnt notable then it should be nominated for deletion. By not you are acknowledging that to some degree she is notable. I urge you to put to a article revision to allow debate to proceed. As an admin i would hope you would be aware of the need for consensus. If consensus is to redirect then that is fine. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Also she clearly passes general notability guidelines And as Wikipedia:1E states that as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified. A google search shows how many reliable sources there are for her.Warburton1368 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
My opinion has nothing to do with this as I don't know much about Cher Lloyd other than she was on the X Factor. There was a request at WP:RFPP to lock the page which I responded to. Looking back on the article history just before I locked it I can see that there was some form of edit warring going on with her being put on redirect and then being taken off it. The people doing this were auto confirmed editors so the only solution to stop this is to fully lock the article. I can tell you right now what will happen if I downgraded that to a semi-protection and that is that the edit war will resume and I do not allow edit warring on any article, especially a BLP.
If people like Cher Lloyd that much they will add that talk page to their watchlist so it will still show up when someone makes an edit. The talk page is completely unaffected by the article being locked.--5 albert square (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
A solution would be to revert to article space for a period of one week fully protected this would allow all users including ips to respond if consensus is to revert or keep then after that period it can be done permanently. That would be a fair solution and compromise. Warburton1368 (talk) 09:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
"Thomas the Tank Engine" editor
You blocked User:98.248.166.212 recently for disruptive editing. Now, despite having been warned not to by several editors, this IP has continued to change UK-based names in Thomas the Tank Engine-related articles to their US equivalents. See here, and here, both made after my final warning, the second "final" warning he received, the other being yours. Can you please look into this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
In a vain attempt to try and stop something like that happening again I've added the British English template to the Thomas and Friends talk page. That way it kind of tags the page as being British so I'm kind of hoping it would dissuade any editor from changing the flags etc to American! Don't know why people would think he is American though, the original air channel is ITV from what I know and that is what the article should go from. I can only think that the IP is thinking of one of the production companies which label themselves as being British American? :S--5 albert square (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
my page is missing
~new msg~
hi, basically a random person decided to tag my page (most likely out of the goodness of this person's heart) after all this time when nobody else did. so i just need my resource page that was on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rm2dance -- it doesn't seem to be on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=User:Rm2dance and i don't know if it's supposed to? basically i just need my page, i guess you can just post it back on my page and then i can move it out of wikipedia. thanks~
~original msg -- (just forget everything -- too much trouble)~
hmm.. so my page is missing randomly just today with no problems after all this time. then a random person decides to tag it because the person felt like it? is there like mediation or something for something like this?
but basically if it's too complicated or too much trouble, just nevermind, im just wondering if they have mediation
also, was there any way to protect my page? just wondering
hmm.. it says "If all else fails, try another wiki" so i'll just do that -- where is my resource page? the history for it that is. so the page took years to build up so im glad a random person decided to tag it... it's fine. i'll just put it on wikia for the time being. wikia doesn't have any problems and wikipedia also... but it depends on the random people.. well.... rm2dance (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC).
I left a message on your talkpage asking for a compromise to Cher Lloyd but received no reply. To allow a full debate to take place the suggestion i made was to move the page back to a full user space for a period of one week fully protected to allow all users including Ip's to discuss the redirect this cant happen in its current state. I and other users want a full debate to be allowed to take place as consensus is importance. There is no consensus for article to be a redirect. Please read all comments at Talk:Cher Lloyd. wikipedia is a community and consensus is important. Thanks for your time. Warburton1368 (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say no at this stage because I'm not 100% convinced that edit warring wouldn't start again. However if you disagree with this you can always take it to WP:RFPP--5 albert square (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
What i meant was if it was reverted to userspace and fully protected for a period to allow the debate to take place. There couldn't be edit warring just a debate. If necessary i can take it to WP:RFPP but in the first instance it would be best practice to deal with the Admin that dealt with it originally. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
You would be best to take it to WP:RFPP to get another admin to review it then as I'm not completely convinced that would be best for the page. After all she's not really notable yet and the page doesn't actually add anything to the encyclopedia as to what's already there on the other article. Please take this to WP:RFPP thanks.--5 albert square (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kate Ramsay
Guess who's back and removing sourced content again? Do you think the article could benefit from protection? Mark was also targeted as usual. - JuneGloomTalk21:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
He left weeks ago and he left UK screens on Wednesday I think. I've reported the IP to AIV as they removed content after four warnings. - JuneGloomTalk
I was going to say he must have left by now. Not watched Neighbours in a bit but was sure he'd gone. Anyway I've blocked the IP for 6 months for sockpuppetry and locked the articles for 2 months each. Hopefully that will be long enough!--5 albert square (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I left a message on your talkpage asking for a compromise to Cher Lloyd but received no reply. To allow a full debate to take place the suggestion i made was to move the page back to a full user space for a period of one week fully protected to allow all users including Ip's to discuss the redirect this cant happen in its current state. I and other users want a full debate to be allowed to take place as consensus is importance. There is no consensus for article to be a redirect. Please read all comments at Talk:Cher Lloyd. wikipedia is a community and consensus is important. Thanks for your time. Warburton1368 (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say no at this stage because I'm not 100% convinced that edit warring wouldn't start again. However if you disagree with this you can always take it to WP:RFPP--5 albert square (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
What i meant was if it was reverted to userspace and fully protected for a period to allow the debate to take place. There couldn't be edit warring just a debate. If necessary i can take it to WP:RFPP but in the first instance it would be best practice to deal with the Admin that dealt with it originally. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
You would be best to take it to WP:RFPP to get another admin to review it then as I'm not completely convinced that would be best for the page. After all she's not really notable yet and the page doesn't actually add anything to the encyclopedia as to what's already there on the other article. Please take this to WP:RFPP thanks.--5 albert square (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kate Ramsay
Guess who's back and removing sourced content again? Do you think the article could benefit from protection? Mark was also targeted as usual. - JuneGloomTalk21:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
He left weeks ago and he left UK screens on Wednesday I think. I've reported the IP to AIV as they removed content after four warnings. - JuneGloomTalk
I was going to say he must have left by now. Not watched Neighbours in a bit but was sure he'd gone. Anyway I've blocked the IP for 6 months for sockpuppetry and locked the articles for 2 months each. Hopefully that will be long enough!--5 albert square (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello once again. Just wondering, considering this user's blatant threat of sockpuppetry, is it possible to get their IP blocked as well as just the user? U-Mos (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Why on earth did you say I vandalized that page? I got your message about not making the article so instead I just added information to the page that was already created for it.
I have never said that you vandalised any page because you didn't.
The edit summary I gave said the edits were made in good faith. It didn't say it was vandalism because it wasn't. I then left a message on your talk page but it was only to explain why I undid your edits. Again I didn't say it was vandalism because it wasn't, I merely suggested that you read Wikipedia:Notability (music) to try and help.--5 albert square (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
If you look at this it was another editor that reverted your edit as vandalism, not me. You would need to ask the editor themselves why they did this.--5 albert square (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
it's really ridiculous because on the dutch page everything is 2010
but when people of other countries update information they look mostly on the english page and copy that information
so they put the 2006 information of the english page while correct information of 2010 is on the dutch page
You're in the category of admins willing to do revdel - would you mind revdel'ing this diff (reverted here) in which a user links to a comment I made off-wiki under an account linked to my real name? While I identified myself there at the time, the blog address has not been posted on-wiki, and I explain fully at User:Roscelese/Canvassing incident. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but would you also revdelete this? It doesn't contain the link, but anything intended to make it easier for people to find me off-wiki is a outing risk all the same. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't intended to make it easier for people to find you off-wiki and repeats information that you disclosed immediately above. - Haymaker (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I did not name the blog. There was a reason for that. You named the blog. If it wasn't intended to make it easier for people to find me, you should have no objection to the revdel, and can post the comment again without including the identifying information. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Roscelese, if you're worried about WP:OUTING risks, I would recommend sending RevDel requests by email, not by messaging an administrator on their Wikipedia talk page. This way, other Wikipedia users (anonymous or registered) cannot see the edit in the RevDel request and the risk of an outing is virtually eliminated. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs22:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding, I seem to have had Wikipedia/internet trouble all night and have only just got notification of the message! Anyway now Done--5 albert square (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Kelly Bailey (Misfits) doesn't need to as there is another Kelly Bailey... but Nathan Young (Misfits) could be moved to Nathan Young - only the non notable subject that has the title is up for deletion so we could wait until it's deleted. If it is contested, Am I right in thinking the most notable subject matter gets the title? (As there are only two Nathan Young's.)RaintheOneBAM17:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Alisha, Curtis and Simon are all Done.
As for Nathan, if there are more than one subject with the same name on Wikipedia then a disambiguation page would need to be set up under Nathan Young. The page that is currently there (if it is kept) would need to be moved to something like Nathan Young (musician) and the misifts character would stay under [[Nathan Young {Misfits)]]. However the musician is currently up for deletion, I believe unless anybody removes that template within the next 3-4 days then it will be deleted. Rather than move pages about, for the sake of a few days, lets see what the outcome of that is first. If the musician is deleted I'll move the Misfits character, if he's not I'll move the musician and set up a disambiguation page :)--5 albert square (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Ha ha, I just saw. It might be worth keeping an eye on the Glee articles though, that's the second one that's been taken to WP:RFPP tonight. - JuneGloomTalk22:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll try my best but I seem to be having internet and computer trouble for some reason tonight. I was in the middle of replying to you earlier when my keyboard randomly stopped working so I had to restart the pc! :S I was going to ask why Glee might be under attack but I just saw the news on BBC3 and it says that Cheryl Cole might be appearing in it? Has that got something to do with it?--5 albert square (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It looks like it started on Tumblr as just a bit of silliness among the Kurt/Blaine fans, that built up a quick head of steam from being reblogged a lot. Touch wood, it seems to be dying down now :) Frickative23:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Really?...
See my message here. And no, I'm not trying to say you are a bad admin. Just that your decision really confuses me, considering that you helped with rving the guy's edits to Osarius' sig. LikeLakers2 (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
At first I thought he was trying to be helpful but then looked into it even more and remembered I came across the IP last night and no they weren't! I don't understand why they made modifications to pages where people were warned something like 2 years ago and even to an RFA page that says not to modify it!--5 albert square (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, 5 albert square. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Seeing as the account this name is similar to hasn't edited since 2009, it seems unlikely to be a problem, and the user is claiming to be the same person anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
There has been persistant trouble on this page for a while now, long before I ever showed up. IP's constantly putting their own opinion in, adding too much info. The main problem is infobox edits by the many. Offer it any sort of protection?RaintheOneBAM23:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Haha I don't watch any American soaps, only really things like Knight Rider and Diagnosis Murder (Diagnosis Murder I got addicted to from it following on from Neighbours on the BBC half the time!). I thought Tea Delgado was going to be about some form of tea that you drink, got a shock when an image of someone popped up!--5 albert square (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Lol! I don't watch the American soaps either, though I did see some eps of General Hospital a few years ago. I liked Diagnosis Murder too, Dick Van Dyke's great. - JuneGloomTalk00:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Haha - I thought it would was Tea too, until someone pointed out it's pronounced Tayha. American soaps are OTT, but I watched all Sunset Beach and Days of our Lives because Channel 5 aired them. Asif they named a character after a herb, JG!RaintheOneBAM00:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
LOL. It's pronounced Taya. That's why I had it in the lead (as Tay-Ya, even though that may not have been the best way to describe it for an encyclopedia), but I see it was removed. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I think Todd Manning (Tea's on-screen husband) could do with protection too. It's a GA which today more than ever .. a string of dispute of something as trivial as a image caption. (Which should be there as more than one actor played the character.) Also the suspected sockpuppets have added to the trouble.RaintheOneBAM21:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
And Done God that green tick appears on my page a lot now! Given what happened to Tea (semi protect then still edit war so full protect) I just put Todd straight to full protection for a month. They should come off full protection around the same time as each other - how romantic for husband and wife! :p--5 albert square (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Goodness. This is the type of craziness I was talking about with the "Two Todds" storyline. 5 albert square, will you restore the article to before 166.205.11.236's revert? Like I told Blue Dog97, Trevor St. John still portrayed Todd Manning...even if his character turns out to be a fake. Further, it has yet to be revealed onscreen which Todd is the real Todd Manning. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
That's ok, you may need to keep me right though with what are correct versions of these articles though as this isn't a soap that I watch :)--5 albert square (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'm thinking when the article protection wears off, it should be put on semi-protection. But, in the meantime, would you mind carrying out one more edit request? Having the line "In August 2011, it is revealed that Todd's identical twin brother, Victor Lord Jr., was conditioned to believe he was Todd and assume Todd's identity." changed to "In August 2011, St. John's character is revealed as Todd's identical twin brother, Victor Lord Jr., conditioned to believe he was Todd and assume Todd's identity."? The hidden note isn't needed anymore either. If you're not supposed to make such an edit, since you are the one who locked the article, that's fine. I can wait. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
