User talk:Willking1979/Archive 3

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Western Kentucky University

Need your opinion. A relatively new user, User:BigRedTool, added a blatantly self-promotional external link to Western Kentucky University, as seen here. I reverted the inappropriate link and added a {{uw-spam1}} warning. Now, the user has re-added mention of the publication, but without the external link. That precludes my reverting and issuing a {{uw-spam2}}. There's a pretty evident COI here, and from what I can tell, the publication itself isn't officially affiliated with the university. I'm struggling a bit to come up with a concise edit summary for my revert as well as an appropriate warning for the user in question. Perhaps a non-template warning is in order. I'm just trying to avoid biting the newcomers, even though I'm relatively sure this one has more of an interest in self-promotion than in improving the encyclopedia as a whole. Your suggestions? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted the newest edit and issued a warning using the {{uw-coi}} template. If the user continues, I'll report it to the COI noticeboard. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor review

Hello, you currently have an Editor review request listed on the main page, although it has failed to gain comments, are you still interested in having it open, if so or if not please acknowledge me of that to make a proper archival of the nomination. Thanks.--TRUCO 22:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Since it has been about two months, go ahead and archive it. Sincerely, Willking1979 (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, done. If you wish to receive a future review, don't hesitate to reopen a new review.--TRUCO 23:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all you do. Willking1979 (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry you didn't get any comments on your editor review, but for what it's worth, I think you're a good editor! :) Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 02:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment...An IPer did leave a question which seemed to be more fitting on an RfA rather than on an editor review. There were some vandalism as well on the page. Willking1979 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Denim (band)

I must object to your warning of me regarding the Denim (Band) page. You even chose to use obnoxious language to me saying it was vandalism. This was shear spite and bad manners on your part. All I was doing was splitting a pages which had two subjects into two separate pages. Nothing was removed from wikipedia, just moved to the two new pages. Now I may have been wrong to do that, but in no way was that vandalism. Declan (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I do apologize for the warnings. However, please discuss any major changes on the article's talk page. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Make no mistake, I appreciate your speedy fixing of real vandalism, but not every edit is vandalism. I added a split tag to the article. By the way, on a tiny out of the way article like that, I really do not see any reason to discuss major changes like that. There is no one to discuss them with. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I realize that not every edit is vandalism. Huggle just looks for patterns of vandalism and you go with your first instinct. If I made errors, I try to correct them. Regarding major changes, there are over 1600 admins and thousands, if not millions, of other trusted users ready to discuss major changes. Willking1979 (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Kai

This is the first article created by an editor, who apparently copied all the templates that were at the top of Dragon Ball. I would strongly suggest that you take a second to look at why an edit is being done before simply assuming, incorrectly, that it is vandalism. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience. Someone else has just redirected the Dragon Ball Kai article to the main Dragon Ball article. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that. If you look at the template at the bottom of Dragon Ball there is a link to subarticles for each episode, even though they do not exist. Correction, there are tons of Dragon Ball episode articles. I am surprised that anyone took issue with the Dragon Ball Kai article. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Wtcw.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Wtcw.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Appalachian music

On Monday, March 9, 2009, I created the article Appalachian music after reading the WikiProject Appalachia page. Someone attempted to restore the redirect to Old-time music, telling me that there was very little information. I undid that edit. However, they were correct regarding the amount of information in the article. Thus, I have a proposal: if we can, we can work together to improve and expand the Appalachian music article. If you know anyone who can help out with the article, please let them know. If you are interested in assisting, have questions, want to talk, etc., feel free to put something on my talk page.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated. TTS51207 (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I just placed a music stub template to the bottom of the article and corrected a spelling error. I would strongly prefer that you add refs to the article as well. I really do believe that Appalachian music deserves an article because it is very influential in many music genres. I'll help as much as I can in getting this article to a full version. Thanks for all you do, Willking1979 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks for your help. I will try to get some refs in ASAP. TTS51207 (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you have any further questions, just leave them here on my talk page. Willking1979 (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!!!

Hey, Willking1979/Archive 3. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!-- La Alquimista 12:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Willking1979 (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: BenH at it again

I have sent a report to AIV about the anon user. I will keep an eye on the contribs, you do the same :) Good catch :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 16, 2009 @ 22:20

When I noticed the edit to WLEX-TV on my watchlist, in noticed that the IPer was blocked before. Then I immediately reverted the edits and issued an "only warning" to the user. I'll monitor the IPer and the articles for any future edits. Willking1979 (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, the IP (76.7.141.220‎) was blocked for 2 weeks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 17, 2009 @ 03:33
I noticed the block on the watchlist. We'll see what happens after two weeks. Willking1979 (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Signpost


The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Test

Testing for account creation Willking1979 (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Account creation system

Thanks for your interest in helping users create accounts. I'm pleased to advise you that your request has been approved. Please read WP:ACCG before using the system. You can log in at http://stable.toolserver.org/acc/acc.php.

For the moment you will be limited to creating 6 accounts per day, and you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user. If you find yourself running into this limit frequently, please request the accountcreator permission at WP:RPE. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Too Similar

Hi, I've noticed that you've declined couple of account requests as too similar to existing accounts, created >2 years ago and with no contributions. As I understand, in case if the similar account is inactive, account creation is permitted. I'm just curiuos about your rationale to decline. Thanks, Skarebo (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Since it was my first day, I may have been confused. When I tried to send e-mail to the users each time, there was a pink warning box telling me the name was similar. I was looking at the guide several times but did not find a clear solution. I did upgrade to "account creator" status as part of my Wiki user rights later in the day. It could be because I did not have that status early on. I am still learning the ropes and apologize for any inconvenience. Willking1979 (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, it's not a big problem. I'm learning stuff myself, so I was curious how other account creators deal with questionable situations. Apparently, in case of similar inactive account it's usually ok to create it. Now we know. :) Skarebo (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Like you, I'll continue to learn as I go. If I have a situation or problem with an account request, I'll simply defer to other users and admins. Willking1979 (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Billy Gillispie

I don't know how this works, so I'll just post here and assume that you'll be able to see it. The Billy Gillispie edit was due to information I have received that I cannot link because it is not on the internet as an article yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.48.158 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Our policy states that unless there is an extremely reliable source (refer to WP:RS for more), the info cannot be in Wikipedia. That is my basis for the revert. Willking1979 (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:76.7.122.236 and BenH

Yup, that would be him. Keep an eye out on that IP for more edits. Good catch. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 25, 2009 @ 23:49

I did issue a level 3 warning after his first three edits earlier today. More warnings may be needed. I'll continue to monitor the situation. Willking1979 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

75.174.50.49

Thanks for your diligent reverts at Porch monkey, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 01:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Willking1979 (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

NotYet

You know, the blocks were from 10 months and before that. There were 5 total. Most of them were very controversial and caused a lot of disputes among regulars at Wikipedia. One of the blocking admin is currently at ArbCom for abusing his ops. The actual notyet link has nothing to do what you intend, but regardless of that - if not yet after 10 months, then it really is not yet either, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

While I believe you have made very constructive contribs, the fact of the matter is this: There are indeed issues with your RFA. The block log speaks for itself. Many of your opposers have mentioned legit concerns about incivility. In addition, you have not mentioned in the intro about the BLP issues facing Wikipedia. Accurate BLPs about notable people are crucial to the future of Wikipedia. If you do not like to delete pages, then you should not have run for adminship. There are many BLPs that need to be deleted by admins because they are not notable. Not yet is not yet. Willking1979 (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
No one asked about BLP issues. If you want to know my work on them, you can easily see such on my user page. I successfully negotiated the improvements of Rosalind Picard and ended a lot of fighting while substantially improving the page. My stance on BLPs has always been well known, hence why most people don't bother mentioning it. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
What is your take on FlaggedRevs? What about liberal or univeral use of semi-protection of BLPs? Willking1979 (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I was one of the first supporters for FlaggedRevisions then I opposed it when they wanted to expand it beyond BLP and some certain areas. I think it will cause problems and be messy. Sure, it would protect a lot, but it would also slow down a lot. I haven't seen a trial so I don't know if the costs outweigh the benefits. I proposed (it would be as interesting as FR) an idea that if we limit sources to only those older than a month we would be able to cut down on most of the problems. A lot of the BLP issues are from recent news and everyone trying to add it but each person has their own take. The Palin page was a complete disgrace whenever a new thing hit the air. A month would allow corrections, errors to be revealed, etc. But yeah, it will never happen. The dangerous problem with BLPs are POV, which will probably slip through Flagged Revisions. Blatant vandalism and bad claims will be stopped, but subtle attacks will get through, especially if partisans monitor the FRs. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
That is all I wanted to know. Anyone who runs for adminship should state their position on BLPs at the outset. You should have addressed BLPs in your intro. Because of this, along with the issues I already discussed, my oppose still stands. Willking1979 (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of any RfAs that address BLP from the outset nor have I seen you opposing those others. I will be sure to link the above statement with your blatant talk page statement on Flagged Revisions so people can be clear that it is more of a unique Soap oppose than an actual fundamental belief. Have a good night. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Even if FlaggedRevs was not invented, I would still oppose your RfA because of the incivility issues. Willking1979 (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Really? Because you don't really spend any time at RfA. It is an odd assortment of RfAs you attend. Does someone email you? Drop you a link? What is your selection process? You never provide any real statement, and half the time you don't elaborate outside of the bold. So why even show up? To support friends and their views? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Because of my duties combating vandalism, account creation, and other on-wiki and off-wiki responsibilities, I cannot vote in all RfAs. My selection process is simple: I !vote for people who want to improve Wikipedia. Wikipedia indeed has problems, which does include, of course, BLPs. I could talk all night about other issues like neutrality, notablility, civility, and vandalism (those issues in no particular order). But I rather work at improving the encyclopedia rather than bickering 24/7 over wikipolitics. Everyone on Wikipedia is entitled to put anything clean on their user pages per WP guidelines. The FlaggedRevs banner is compliant with the guidelines and I did not have the banner in mind when !voting against your adminship. Willking1979 (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I never said the banner was wrong, so you can forget about that. I removed the "soap" descriptive, as it merely meant that you were taking a strong position on the matter. It doesn't matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I am glad you took away the description. However it does not take away the issues with your RfA. Willking1979 (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't come to your talk page thinking that you would change your mind. I simply wanted your statement as to your actual oppose reasoning, which you provided above. That is done, so goodbye. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
See ya soon. Willking1979 (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dingbat2007

Thanks for the headsup. Full set of warnings, all reverted and sent to AIV. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 6, 2009 @ 01:51

You're welcome....hopefully the admins will handle the situation ASAP. Willking1979 (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Took 'em a half an hour, but they finally got User:Rebafan13 blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 6, 2009 @ 02:31
Glad they finally did get Rebafan13 blocked. AIV was in a BIG backlog. Willking1979 (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wkyt.gif)

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Wkyt.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The WKYT-TV GIF image was replaced by a PNG version by another user. Feel free to delete the GIF version at anytime. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wtcw.gif)

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Wtcw.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, feel free to remove the GIF image. It has been replaced with a PNG version. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Yet another BenH sock: User:76.7.118.237

Yup, that would be one. Just keep an eye on the contribs and revert as necessary. Good catch. You are getting good at sockwatch :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 8, 2009 @ 15:49

My secret weapon is my watchlist. :) WBKO was edited by the sock and was on my watchlist. Willking1979 (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
So is mine. I have lots of stations throughout Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and DC on my watchlist. As I work on my articles, the list is ever expanding. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 8, 2009 @ 19:43
I have about 8500+ pages on mine. Willking1979 (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
As of this moment, only 1,722 on mine. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 8, 2009 @ 20:07

your deletion revert

(context- this revert) You reverted an unsourced paragraph that has a fact tag over two years old. Shouldn't it just be removed, since it is old and unsourced? And apropos of nothing, we are within a week of each other in age. tedder (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not notice the fact tag. I reverted it because the IPer did not include an edit summary. However, if it is completely unsourced, go ahead and remove the paragraph or find reliable sources. Willking1979 (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. Yeah, I do a lot of vandalism patrol work too, so I understand. It just caught my eye. tedder (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - April 2009

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter
Issue VII - April 2009
Project news
  • The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 65 FAs, 7 FLs, and 146 GAs. That is a wonderful number, particularly of the GAs. Thanks to all those who worked on these articles!
  • Secisek was interviewed by the Wikipedia Signpost in their 9 March 2009 issue here. Thank you for your great work in getting more attention to the project!
Member news
  • Our membership continues to expand. We are currently at a stunning 278 registered members. A profound thank you to all of you. Without your support and work, this project, and wikipedia itself, would not exist.
Other news
  • We have recently started a separate subpage of the project dedicated to keeping the members informed of the latest activities regarding FA and GA status, requests for peer review and comment, proposed deletions, and other article related activity. That information can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Article alerts. Please feel free to look at the page frequently and respond to any and all items posted there that you wish.
Related projects news
  • The Iglesia ni Cristo work group, Syriac Christianity work group, and Oriental Orthodoxy project are all currently being considered for restructuring. Any and all members of any of those groups are welcomed and encouraged to take part in the discussions.
Christianity related news
From the Members

Welcome to the Seventh, admittedly delayed, issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.

Yes, it's been more than a bit of a rough time for some of us, okay, me, for a while here. Several things, most of them not real pleasant, kept coming up. I think most of that is over with know. I hope and pray as much anyway. Easter is the church's time of rebirth, and I hope it's a good time for the rebirth of this newsletter. I hope that the project grows in numbers and effectiveness as the church itself has over the years. Thanks again for all your efforts to date. Oh, yes, and please note that this section is entitled "From the Members". That means you, all of you. If any of you have any comments you'd like to share with the other members in this section, please feel free to let us know, and we'll put them in the next issue. We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask. Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. Thanks again.

John Carter (talk), Lead Coordinator

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 17:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user talk page from vandalism quickly. :) --Ian Weller (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Willking1979 (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to apologize for my streaks of vandalism, mostly on J. delanoy's user talk page. It was un-called for, but I was frustrated, because he deleted a page, which he thought was vandalism, but was not. I know I should not have taken my frustrations out, but I didn't know what else to do. I apologize, thank you. Dirty MF Harry (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Dirty MF Harry

Apology accepted. Willking1979 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The changes made to the Jenkins and McRoberts pages

I myself was raised in Jenkins. To all of at least the ages of teenagers all call Jenkins and McRoberts J-Town and Mc-Town. So you were wrong in saying they were vandilism and if I have to I will credit the citizens of both cities. I also feel that you were very rude to me in how you went around saying that what I said was vandilism. I took an offense to it, your intentions may have been good but your word choice was not. Jfd265 (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC) JFD265

I am also a Letcher Countian, having lived here all my life. I do apologize for any wording that may have upset you. However, Wikipedia requires that you provide reliable third-party sources for those nicknames. See WP:CITE for more information. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Thanks

Not a problem :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 17, 2009 @ 01:12

Apparently, the IPer, who came from a college campus, retaliated against me. I also reverted other smears from another IPer earlier in my Huggle session. Willking1979 (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage (Nz26). Its greatly appreciated. My brother knows about this and has sort of been banned from using our computer. Yay!. The reason why im on this IP address is because im on a wikibreak. Thanks Again! - 125.237.213.1 (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology by IP

I'm sorry mate, please accept my apology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.252.64 (talk) 02:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Willking1979 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Apology for an oversight

Heh, I thank you for it, I was stumped as all hell on that one. --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 00:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was busy with categorizing BLPs and I saw the request on IRC. Did not know it was handled by you until I created it. I must have done something wrong in the process. Thanks for all you do, Willking1979 (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
"Thanks for all you do..."; you're welcome, and thanks, I take that as quite a compliment. :) --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 00:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Encinitas, CA

My addition of a notable resident continues to be deleted by you. Do all I need to do is get proof from the internet that this person lived there? He is a notable local resident in the many contributions he gave to the city... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozmo1 (talk • contribs)

If I may step in, this person doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. What would make this person truly notable? WadeSimMiser (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
So what are you saying? That youre only a notable person in this world if some one gave you a wikipedia page. Ask anyone in Encinitas and theyll tell you this person was a very liked and notable local who tied the community together. I would like to add him without being deleted. Can I do this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozmo1 (talk • contribs)
Go ahead. Give us something notable about him. Provide references wherever you can to back up what you say. WadeSimMiser (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I second the motion, Wade. Willking1979 (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
He wasnt Tom Cruise by any means but hes a famous local. Not sure if there are news articles about him. What else can I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozmo1 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
What may be missing is a link to Wikipedia's guidelines on what notability is. Here you go: Wikipedia:Notability (people). It'll explain in good detail what needs to be done to establish notability for someone- Tom Cruise or Joe Schmoe. tedder (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Tedder for helping me out. Willking1979 (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

UAA

Thanks for the work, though if you have a second please consider my note here. Thanks! Nja247 20:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. From time to time I go through the user creation log and look for username vios. I'll be more careful next time. Willking1979 (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No it's cool and I'm glad you do it. I just wanted to let you know that the names were not immediately blatant violations that required immediate action. It's possible (admittedly marginally) that they may end up editing completely in good faith, which is why it's best to wait in those cases where it's not clear cut (especially with no edit history). Do keep it up though, and now you'll do even better work! Cheers. Nja247 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks once again...keep up the good work. :) Willking1979 (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 05:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Uruguayan Civil War

What was unconstructive about my last edit? I added referenced information about basque and spanish involvement, why is that vandalism?--94.192.227.195 (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I may have screwed up on that one...I'll look at the edit. Willking1979 (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
That'd be grand--94.192.227.195 (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I undone my own edit and your warning upon further review. I apologize for the inconvenience.Willking1979 (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Were all human. For future reference, had I done something wrong in how I'd formatted the reference?--94.192.227.195 (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure. However, it is a good thing to go to WP:CITE to find out how to cite sources. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Robley Rex

I have nominated Robley Rex, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robley Rex. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fol de rol troll (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on AFD page. Willking1979 (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

For future note

For future note, unambiguous advertisement pages can be tagged for speedy deletion with {{Db-g11}} or {{Db-spam}}, bypassing Miscellany for Deletion altogether. See the Criteria for speedy deletion page (linked above) for a full list of situations where a page can be tagged for speedy deletion. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 19:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't sure what to classify the page. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Null perspiration, chummer. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 19:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)