User talk:CharlieEchoTango/Archive 9

Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Deleted article

Why my article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sunny Singh, IX 'D' of DAV Sasaram was deleted? I was making edits in that article and was trying to improve it so that I could submit it. But it was deleted, why? Please, restore that article. Sunny Singh 17:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social network or a tool to promote yourself. Your "article" had no chance whatsoever to ever be published, it is pointless for you to spend any more time editing it and for reviewers' to spend any more time reviewing it, hence the deletion. If you want to retrieve the content of the article, let me know, I can email it to you - just don't publish it on Wikipedia, because this is not what this website is for. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 17:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please, tell me how can I visit my page for the last time so that I may retrieve my content and information. Sunny Singh 18:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to specify a valid e-mail address in your preferences so I can e-mail it to you. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 18:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell me how can I retrieve content without using E-mail.

You can't, sorry. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you upload them on this page for a short time unless I copy them. Then, I'll tell you.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to restore a page that contains personal information on an identifiable minor, even temporarily. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Indef IP block

I see that you blocked 82.13.54.180 indefinitely: [1]. I assumed this was a mistake, as IP addresses are not normally blocked indefinitely, so I have commuted the block to 2 years. (This is actually a compromise, as I had been about to block for 1 year when you beat me to the button.) Please let me know if you really did have a reason to block indefinitely. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, mistake indeed. It's been a while since I hopped by AIV, will be more careful next time. Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-penetrative sex

Since he's back again, will you lock the article again? 23.29.124.109 (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

FoF

Thanks for the super fast response! Just wanted to let you know that you missed one of the socks, User:Daniel0621. Sædontalk 07:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, now blocked. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You rock, sir (or ma'am) :). Sædontalk 07:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Christina W. Pedersen

Regardless of which perspective you have the calling of that penalty was ridiculous at best. Even neutral parties would agree.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewbryan (talk • contribs) 04:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

My perspective is irrelevant, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Defamatory statements such as « Lack of intelligence » and « children's level football » are not tolerated, especially with regards to living persons, see WP:BLP. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Penguin 236

Hey there, User:Penguins in space is his "alt" account as well. Sædontalk 23:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! CharlieEchoTango (contact) 23:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Aide

Bonjour Charlie. Oui excusez moi mais je ne savais où poster ce message. Les seules choses à faire sur Alpha and Omega (film), c'est de supprimer les récompenses (à part la nomination de Van de Yacht qui elle est vraie) et le paragraphe sur une suite. Il faut bloquer l'article pour un mois au moins car tout les jours, des mensonges sont écrits sur cet article. Merci de votre aide. Cordialement. Supporterhéninois (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Bon, je vous fais confiance, car je ne connais rien du sujet. J'ai enlevé le passage sur la suite et les mentions de récompenses, qui de toute façon n'étaient pas citées, et j'ai bloqué l'article pour trois mois. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup. Vous pouvez me faire confiance, j'ai réalisé le Bon Article sur le wiki français. Et vous n'avez qu'à vérifier en tapant les récompenses et en voyant qu'elles sont fausses. Supporterhéninois (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User 114.166.8.1

Requests an extension! See User talk:114.166.8.1 Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, and talk page access removed. Keep up the good work! CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Singnet

Thank you. Do you think semiprotecting the affected pages would be of use?—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Protected Kamen Rider Wizard‎ three days. Combined with the range block this should stop the disruption for now. Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. He was vandalizing the list of characters, too, which seemed to get the brunt of his attack for some reason.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, got that one too. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Help

Hey CET, I have asked User:DennisBrown for some help on a vandalism matter, but he seems to be having more important conversations and missing my posts. This user (98.204.146.142), previously blocked by Dennis, has been vandalizing articles after warnings from Dennis and myself. I was wondering if you could put a block in place (last one was for 12 hours) to stop the vandalism. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Sir. Much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your closing of AfD for Gates of Vienna

I'm requesting that you reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gates of Vienna (2nd nomination) as delete. I believe that "no consensus" should have been called. I'm making this request per the DRV requirements. __meco (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

75% is consensus enough for me, but feel free to take to DRV if you disagree. Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
OK. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 17#Gates of Vienna. __meco (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Some advice on edits

Hi CharlieEchoTango, I know you're probably busy with your own edits, but I was hoping that maybe you could check something for me. I noticed that you reverted this edit [2] to Peter MacKay, which I was thinking the same thing but didn't want to revert just in case I was wrong. Well, the same editor has been posting press release and newspaper clippings to dozens of other MPs articles over the last little while, some which I reverted, some which were reverted by other editors with a similar edit summary as yours. My opinion was that most of the edits are just adding random statements about random topics, not something that you usually see in a Wikipedia article, while also pretty much copying the text from the release, as I've see edits that read "told a press conference on Friday" giving no indication to the reader of when Friday actually was. What I was hoping you could do, when you get a chance if you take a look at that editors contributions[3] to see if in fact they were not appropriate and see if I was right to revert. If I'm wrong and messed up here, I would like to know so I can fix my mistakes and avoid causing further problems. If this isn't something I should have asked, I appologize, it was just because I seen you revert the edit that I thought I would ask your advice. Thanks in advance. Cmr08 (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a good revert, no worries. I'll let the user know that his edits are problematic. Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks - not looking like a serious editor, and with luck it might make their system people take notice (assuming they care), serious editors request accounts, etc. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

210.89.228.55

Hello. 210.89.228.55 let I vandalism it again, and an act reopen[4][5]. Please deal.--125.205.77.232 (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For blocking users that were clearly vandalizing. Anonymouse321 (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

RfA vote

I noticed at your RFA vote! you placed your name under "support" but your edit summary says "oppose". Not sure if your edit or your edit summary was your true intention.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary on purpose. Just a small joke. :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible unblock?

There is an unblock request at User talk:Gregory1132, for a user you blocked. Anthony Bradbury and I have been in discussion with the user, and I am rather inclined to unblock, but doubtful mainly because I feel there may be WP:COMPETENCE issues. Since you placed the block,you may like to express an opinion. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to an unblock. Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hellmut G. Haasis

I see that my attempt to render some of the German page on the above writer was denied. Since it was simply a brief summary of the German page, I don't see why it was rejected.

Williamodom (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Williamodom

hey can you explain why my page was declined

hey can you explain why my page was declined and what steps i should take to get it accepted....PLEASE HELP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangladesh News (talk • contribs) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason is posted at the top of your submission. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). CharlieEchoTango (contact) 23:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Book as reference?

Hi there! I've got a question about using a book that's not been technically released yet as a reference. I have an advanced reader's copy of the book in question, but I know the book won't be widely available until next month. Can it be used as a reference before its official release, or should I wait? Thanks so much for all your help!

Abminsch (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Abminsch. You should probably wait until it's released; though if the book you plan to use as reference is written by the subject, it won't improve the likelihood of your article being accepted. To establish that the subject meets our notability guidelines and ensure the information is verifiable, the references should be about the subject, not by the subject, see WP:42. Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 20:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

RFA inquiry

Hi. I see you recently commented at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/QuiteUnusual and am very glad to see you participating at RFA. Any positive contributions, such as yours, are always welcome. I was wondering though if you would consider expanding your comment to help provide the closing bureaucrat with greater context. Thanks. MBisanz talk 16:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there :-). I expanded my comment in this specific case in light of the plagiarism issue. I don't usually put a rationale when supporting, unless I have something special to say. Support rationales can be useful to 'crats when the consensus is borderline, which is why I usually watch RfAs until they end, so if something happens I can explain my support or, God forbid, move to oppose with a detailed rationale. When a RfA runs above 90% many !votes like mine are just pile-ons that can be safely discarded as they often consist of little more than generic platitudes. Between "Of course", "Quite an unusual RfA", "No problems here" and "~~~~", does any one of these !votes provide more context than the other? Not a 'crat, but I doubt it. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the deletions. :)

LauraHale (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the kitten! :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

CSIS SCRS

Provide reason of removal content on these two topics — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntelOfficer911 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one removing content without explanation, you are. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Provide reason of why you changed the edit of SCRS and CSIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntelOfficer911 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I didn't change the articles, you did, without providing a reason. The burden is on the one making changes to explain them. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I added some information that needed to be present (which are facts) I should not have removed some of the contempt (even thought it is wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntelOfficer911 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please provide reasons of disagreement — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntelOfficer911 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Provide reasons of removal of the ADDITIONAL content (CSIS and SCRS0 - I am trying to avoid an edit war.IntelOfficer911 (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Left message on your talk page. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

File:JTF2 2002.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JTF2 2002.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

mp & silva

point taken. are the changes sufficient? cheers,

dan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsth (talk • contribs) 17:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. It reads like it was written by the company itself, especially stuff like "the company’s unparalleled television rights portfolio". There are other issues too, such as the use of external links in the text and the quality of the sourcing - which is mostly composed of press releases. I note that the submission was declined a second time by another reviewer, The Illusive Man (talk · contribs). -- CharlieEchoTango (contact) 17:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Warning

This IP address got a warning for vandalizing a page - all I did was make corrections on a the Flashpoint series page changing a character's name spelling from Lou to Lew because the character's name is LEWis. Can you explain why I got a vandalism warning? Even if it is wrong, vandalism implies that it's intentional, not a correction made in good faith. It wasn't destructive and can be seen as a logical deduction made from the character's name. Especially since I checked IMDB beforehand to make sure I wasn't making a mistake before I made the changes. Correcting it or changing it back I can understand, but calling it vandalism and threatening to ban someone for what may or may not be correct seems a bit uncalled for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.132.55 (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for assuming bad faith. Lou is the correct name used in the show. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 17:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)