User talk:5 albert square/Archive 15

69.177.2.246
I don't know if you noticed or not, but two different users gave him a last warning and he most certainly did vandalize after the first one. This is an IP that just started posting today, and of the 150ish edits he made, myself or another user has had to revert all but one. This is certainly a vandal! Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you look, the editor was issued a level 1 warning and the next warning was level 3. No idea why someone missed out level 2.  The last edit is at 21.40 hours, the first level 4 warning was issued at 21.46.  I'm not saying it's not vandalism, I'm saying that the editor hasn't edited since the last final warning.--5 albert square (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not that versed on IP's, but you certainly could call it a vandal only block. I don't really understand the finer points between dynamic and fixed IP's, but if you can do something to stop this nonsense, I really think you should.  This guy strikes me as ADHD or OCD in his edits and is certainly not here to improve the pedia. Myself and another editor spent about 45 minutes cleaning up his mess.  Thanks for listening. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't call it a vandal only block, I think it's more a case of them not understanding that there is a consensus on something. In any case they haven't edited in over 4 hours so looks like they've given up or have been frightened off by the level 4 warning.  I'd keep an eye on the IP and re-report it to AIV if they return and carry on in the same fashion.--5 albert square (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

TYVM....Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Lorraine Newman
Not being British, at first I thought someone had misspelled Laraine Newman's name. :-)

Hmm ... no one ever asked this woman to prove she was who she said she was. Since there's been no edits in over a month, it probably won't be an issue, and I suppose you're right about the abandonment (I didn't know we had a length-of-time rule to consider an account abandoned).

I suppose if she wants to come back again she can ask for unblock. Billing it as a precautionary step isn't a bad idea. Not how I would have done it, but not wrong either. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Aww you blocked the EE exec! ;-) What do we think about User:Lucy Spraggan? – anemone projectors – 09:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


TheGeneralUser (talk)  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hello 5 albert square! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk)  13:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

user talk BB Publications
You have deleted my page, I was still working on it. I have not saved it is there a way I can copy my edit onto my PC first? or else I have to start from scratch and just wasted 8 hours. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangerousrave (talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, I have moved it into userspace for you as it's not yet ready to be a Wikipedia article. You can find it at User:Dangerousrave/BB Publications--5 albert square (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangerousrave (talk • contribs) 14:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made the necessary amendments and moved it to AfC. Would appreciate your help or any feedback. Thanks 141.105.208.173 (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made the necessary amendments and moved it to AfC. Would appreciate your help or any feedback. Thanks Dangerousrave (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of user talk page
May I ask why? User talk:Iamthemuffinman.

Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes user request within userspace. Please see wp:blank--5 albert square (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My goodness!!! I always thought that the user talk was the only thing that could not be deleted. I'm astonished!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Generally actual deletion is not allowed for user talk pages, except in very limited circumstances such as vanishing; it would be better to restore the history and blank it. Userpages are different, but the history of talk pages should be kept. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 17:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry my misunderstanding then. Sorry again.--5 albert square (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

UT not deletable
Re User talk:Iamthemuffinman: it is my understanding that user talk pages are only deleted under exceptional circumstances (eg. requesting "right to vanish"). No such circumstances apply here - we need the history as a record of this kid's past disruptions, unblock requests, etc. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy does indeed make clear that U1 doesn't apply to user talkpages. — foxj 17:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

tags
Please go more carefully when adding tags: it's impossible for "unreferenced" and "more footnotes" both to be appropriate, as you added here. Pam D  20:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

OH. oops.
Oopsies. sorry. MAN cluebot is good! i had NO IDEA that was vandalism! :'(--SmartyPantsKid (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks and no worries, I know Sticki can make errors!--5 albert square (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion because my article "does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject"
I was wondering if you could expand on what you meant about my article, VienneMilano, not being significant. How could I show that it is important enough?

ShootingStar07 (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'd suggest that you read the notability guidelines for businesses, that should make things a lot clearer--5 albert square (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for replying and for the link! But could I request that I get more time (at least a few more days) to work on the page? ShootingStar07 (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, looking at it I think that may have been done for you, I think someone moved this into your userspace. I'm not sure though, has someone already done this for you?--5 albert square (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was moved to User:ShootingStar07/VienneMilano by User:Tiggerjay. – anemone projectors – 22:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks AP, I got myself a little lost in all the deletions haha!!--5 albert square (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah me too. Looks like he had the same problem I've had moving user pages into main space! It's a nightmare ;-) – anemone projectors – 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad kids
Hi 5 albert square; I don't know if the continuing introduction of this article constitutes vandalism over previous redirects (including the properly capitalized version), or merely an IP sock of a blocked account, but it may be worth a look. Thanks, 99.136.252.89 (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi


 * If it's a sock then you would be best to file a report at WP:SPI. That way an admin who has access to check for socks can look into that.


 * In the meantime I've locked Bad kids and so no new editors or IPs can edit it, I've also placed another lock on it so it can't be moved (just in case anyone gets ideas that way hah!). Both locks are for two weeks.--5 albert square (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I can't edit at SPI, since it's locked. Much appreciated, 99.136.252.89 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah ok, didn't realise that. Anyway I've filed the case for you now.  Having looked into things I've actually blocked the IP myself as it passed the duck test and I've extended Trisinister's block by another day.  Shame as they were only about 15 minutes away from getting unblocked after yesterdays drama!--5 albert square (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. If you're up for it have a look at this . I'm getting no traction at AiV, have mentioned it to Drmies--presumably just as he was going off-wiki, and assume there's not enough there yet to justify action. At least one of the accounts claims to have been around a long time, though one doesn't believe a thing they say otherwise....at any rate, this appears to be someone who has no compunctions when it comes to writing defamatory and accusatory content in articles and talk pages. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to respond. Thanks again. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism case
Hi! I suspect that this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Dogs_Go_to_Heaven_2) has been vandalized by a non-registered user over the last few days. He/She replaced the original text with a spoof of The Lord of the Rings. Since I do not have a great command of Wikipedia rules and all, and that you are an administrator, could you take charge of this problem or ask someone who could block the vandal or something? I didn't reverse the article to the original so as to keep evidence. Thanks in advance! Gégène (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅--5 albert square (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Re
No problem, if I believe someone did a great job then I will give him/her a barnstar to show their ability to do hard work. Actually I wanted them to be deleted and if you didn't delete that I would surely go towards other admin to delete those revisions. I was glad that you did that very quickly, thanks for that. After I started with Huggle lately, then I have received some attacks and vandalism both on my user page (which is indef semi-protected) and also on talk page. Well, in wikipedia nothing is done, there are surely many things to be done. Torreslfchero (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Article deletion
Hello sir,

I have written an article regarding a company (Clariter S.A).

The article was submitted to wikipedia and was rejected due to supposed violation of copyrights and commercial content, and I was asked to fix it and resubmit.

Since my computer has crashed, I did not get the chance to work on the correction the you asked me to do.

Today, as I entered Wikipedia and hoped to work on the content in order discovered it was deleted entirely and the page i am directed to, where all your comments were written, was erased.

I have no other record of my work (since another admin erased my sandbox for some reason) and thus cannot make the appropriate changes to the article and resubmit it.

I wanted to ask you whether you could restore the page so I could conduct the required changes in order for the article to be qualified.

Thank you for your time.

Bar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barphilosof (talk • contribs) 11:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

delete and then undelete talk pages per WP 1.0 bot issue
5 albert square, I see that you remedied a problem with Talk:Saint Peter's Peacocks football appearing on every run of Version 1.0 Editorial Team/College football articles by quality log by deleting and recreating the talk page. I have requested the same for Talk:St. John's Red Storm football and Talk:Siena Saints football, both suffering from the same problem. Another admin seems to be at a loss for why I requested this. Can you address this? Thanks and all the best, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

WT:EE
Hi, judging by your recent revert to Roxy Mitchell I thought the WT:EE discussion on infobox occupations might interest you. – anemone projectors – 11:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :)--5 albert square (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Da Ya Think I'm Sexy
Hi.

Piriczki user has reverted the article Da Ya Think I'm Sexy?. I moved some phrases to other part of article, because they are linked with a plagiarism issue. This edit claimed it was inaccuarate, but he can't prove his point of view. Rolling Stone magazine, Songfacts and Spinner support my view. Could you warn the user about his abuse (or ask for an administrator to do it?

Regards, Rbrandao (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello


 * I am an administrator so I don't need to ask another admin to warn someone.


 * I wouldn't be willing to warn them because they're not abusing the encyclopedia. They have removed stuff but they are now trying to discuss the article with you on your talk page and they've also opened up a discussion on the article talk page which is the correct thing to do.  I suggest that you join the discussion on the article talk page.--5 albert square (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

hI
Have you read the Wikipedia's policy? I note that Vandalism states that 'vandalism' is "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Do you consider edits to user_talk pages pointing out questionable heuristic actions by ClueBot to constitute the compromise of the integrity of Wikpiedia? If you consider that this is the case, and are completely intellectually honest, I suggest that you visit this page. 222.155.201.232 (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Got any real arguments besides baiting legitimate editors to violate 3RR bro? 222.155.201.232 (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi


 * Yes I know Wikipedia's policies as I'm one of their administrators.


 * If you look at wp:vandalism it lists "silly vandalism" under that. Patent nonsense is classed as silly vandalism, patent nonsense is text that has random characters with no meaning, and that applies to all pages.  Your edit to ClueBot's talk page simply says "Cuhrr bro", how that is questioning ClueBot's actions I don't know.


 * As for your edits to Michael McIntyre, you could be blocked because you are returning to the same disruptive editing that got you blocked only a day or two ago. As it is, I have decided in this instance to now apply a protection to the page--5 albert square (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Somewebsite
Why did you delete the aforementioned template? Based on its transclusions it appears to be used for wherever No license needing editor assistance is found. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ''The editor who uploaded this work found it on an unconfirmed website. Unless it is demonstrated that its creators have released it under a free license, it is likely to be deleted soon. To the uploader: if you want this image to be kept, you must at least provide a link to the source, so a more experienced editor can help determine its status. Please read the image use policy before making any more uploads.


 * From what I can remember there was no source, it was listed like that for over 7 days so it got deleted.--5 albert square (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a template not a file - I think you got a bit confused as to what was going on there. I've undeleted it and reverted the last edit. I hope that's ok. Take another look and see what you think. – anemone projectors – 21:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry, thanks AP, I came across it in one of the sub-categories at CAT:CSD, it must have gone there in error.--5 albert square (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent block of Heechunlee
Hello. You just blocked Heechunlee because of a vandalism only account. Just looking at his contribs, all of his edits seem to be in good faith. Also, he was never warned for any of the edits he made. Sorry if I am wrong. Thanks — nerdfighter 01:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how edits like this are helpful, or the one where they randomly inserted "Republic of Korean ten thousand and three" into an article. I looked over their edits and I read them as vandalism.--5 albert square (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction: Most. Besides, users should be warned up to level 4 before being blocked. — nerdfighter 02:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Rev deletion
Why are you using rev deletion on routine vandalism like this?&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, because of the offensive username--5 albert square (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you overreacted a bit. The username certainly deserved a block, I won't argue that, but we aren't supposed to use revision deletion on routine vandalism. Not a big deal one way or the other, though.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Clockwork universe talk page
Hi, looks like we still need Talk:Clockwork universe theory moved over Talk:Clockwork universe as well. Thanks—Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  19:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Odd, no idea why that didn't move when I asked it to! Typical encyclopedia!  Anyway, ✅--5 albert square (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Your block to 180.194.29.207
This IP has returned post-block with the same crappy edits as. You may want to consider blocking the user as to date none of his/her edits have been useful or productive. --Biker Biker (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks--5 albert square (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPI
Oh wow, thanks for the elaborate explanation. At this point the only thing I am concerned about is that I do wish a check user would be performed for User:FMicronesian, etc. Should I be lobbying in favor of this at the SPI report? You can respond here or at my page at your convenience. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You can certainly add your comments to the SPI case as to why CheckUser should be carried out if you think that would be beneficial. I have already suggested it though :).  You would need to add your thoughts under the "Comments by other users" section.  Hope that helps :)--5 albert square (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Priya Kapoor ‎
Hey, hope you're well. I was just wondering if you could take a look at the history of Priya Kapoor, do you think the page needs protecting for a couple of weeks? The character is supposedly leaving on 20/21 March, but the only sources that are available at the moment are from forums. I believe the IPs that are adding the unsourced info to Priya's article and the cast list mostly belong to Gillyh. - <font color="Purple" face="Arial">JuneGloom  <font color="Green" face="Times New Roman">Talk  22:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've semi-protected it, I think I put it down for 3 weeks because that would take her past the departure date, that is if she is actually going lol! I did a quick Google search and I couldn't find anything to say that she's going.  I did think about just applying pending changes protection but given the rate at which Gilly sometimes edits it could actually create more havoc and work lol!  Hopefully protecting it for 3 weeks, she'll find something else to do with her time.  By the way I see User:Trueman31 has been very active again!--5 albert square (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. I think she is definitely leaving, but no one else has reported it yet. I guess they want to keep it quiet, so it's a surprise to viewers. I did notice all the new Trueman socks, that guy sure has a lot of time on his hands. - <font color="Purple" face="Arial">JuneGloom  <font color="Green" face="Times New Roman">Talk  23:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I always wondered why Trueman31 only targeted Dot, Phil, Steve and Patrick before. I'm still baffled by that but I'm even more baffled by them now including Kat, Alfie, Tanya and Jack!--5 albert square (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He's never only targeted those pages. You only have to look at the contributions of the sockpuppets to see that. I was surprised to see he was the one who did this though. 10 sockpuppets were blocked the other day. – anemone projectors – 18:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, I've only come across him on those pages I think. Yeah I was surprised about the Judy edit as well, that's why we have CheckUser :)--5 albert square (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey 5 albert square; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Update Redirect or Move Page
There is a professional wrestler by the name of Melanie Cruise now Melanie Cruise redirects to Shimmer Women Athletes. Since the Melanie Cruise page is protected, I can't update the redirect to the correct page Melanie Cruise (wrestler). Plus "wrestler" doesn't need to be in the article title. So you either update the redirect or move the "Melanie Cruise (wrestler)" page to "Melanie Cruise. Either is fine.  I was looking through the list of admins and you seemed as good as any to get help from.  Respond on my talk page, thanks!   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response and work!  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about that edit. I think I'll start contibuting normally now. Cruel Tyrannical Dictator (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You should have been contributing normally from the outset. You're setting off the filters and that will only get you blocked.--5 albert square (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Hello, As you may recall, as a first time editor here on Wikipedia, I have been trying to make a constructive edit for two weeks on the Jack the Ripper article page but now the controlling editors are just getting silly. It has become obvious they have no intention to consider the edit for no clear reasons or based on any evidence.

You mentioned I could approach you for direction in what happens now. I have asked Moxy, who has been assisting me with submitting a revised edit proposal, for assistance to proceed with a request for some effective mediation as the situation is deteriorating over one sentence.

Could you please further advise me when appropriate on the best way forward to my contributing to a Wikipedia article?

Thanks27.99.102.172 (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, it might be worthwhile asking for a third party opinion on the article. I can't do it as I've had dealings with you.  However you can only do that if it's only you and one other editor that's involved.  If it's more than one editor you could try other dispute resolution processes such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or you could try requesting comments on the article.  Hope this helps :)--5 albert square (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response and advice. However, I find that process far too convoluted to become involved in for what may be a similar outcome. My view is that 'consensus' on Wikipedia is achieved by intimidation with little reasonable redress for new editors or points of evidence; ordinary people who are powerless under current protocol in the face of entrenched and recalcitrant editors. At least that is my experience on this particular article in a vain attempt to contribute in some small way.

I would rather say this all to someone who actually handles complaints on Wikipedia but it seems that any redress is not available for what in the end is contributing content to a website. But I can assure you that unfortunately this article will remain non-neutral on a point of documented history because of a few misinformed and myopic individuals who cannot be contained by current protocol.

Thank you again for your time.

Best wishes Spiro Dimolianis27.99.102.172 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm sorry that you feel that way. Have you tried discussing your changes to the article on the article talk page?


 * All I can tell you is that consensus is not achieved by intimidation. It has never been and never will be Jimbo's way in which this encyclopedia should go.  Consensus is not voting, really it is just to discuss the best way in which to resolve issues with an article.  The best example I can give is on the talk page of the Bart Simpson article. Someone kept editing it to say that we should include that the creator intended to call him Mort Simpson.  Nothing on Google verified this but the editor kept insisting on adding it to the article so the article turned into an edit war.  I got the article locked and then started a discussion on the talk page to get others thoughts on whether or not this should be added.  As only one source was stating that he was to be called Mort (and even then in a foreign language so not really verifiable) the consensus was that it would not be included.--5 albert square (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but the issue has been ongoing on the article talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jack_the_Ripper 27.99.102.172 (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah thank you I couldn't remember which Jack the Ripper article this is. Looking at the article talk page they are trying to discuss this with you and are also telling you what is wrong with the text you have submitted.  They are telling you that it's not clear what you mean.  They are trying to help you and they have pointed out what is wrong with your edit.  The best advice I can give you is to listen to them and take their comments on board, working with them you should be able to reach a compromise.--5 albert square (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Greetings, ! If we have not met, I'm. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Neighbours new logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Neighbours new logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Silicate minerals
Hi. Per the reports at ANI and SPI, Silican minerals is a sockpuppet of the community banned user Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Never heard of them before, thanks for alerting me--5 albert square (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Neighbours DVD table.
This information is not mentioned in the prose and if you actually looked at the links in regards to the home media you will find that the information I provided is available. If this topic is deleted again I will report the both of you the information is correct and relevant, why are you both trying to obstruct this information. Most of the sources material is no longer around anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.103.150 (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, check this section it is mentioned in there and it is referenced. There really is no need to mention it again.  If you don't agree with that though you need to start a discussion on Neighbours talk page though not mine.--5 albert square (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

“though not mine", oh, I am sorry I wasn't aware that the Wikipedia page for a television programme belonged to an individual. I can’t understand why you deleted this table, the information provided about the “Neighbours – Home Media” area provides nothing but a whole bunch of fluff. For the first time the series is getting released on DVD and the public have the right to know what episodes are on these DVD’s the four mentioned sourced websites provide nothing about the release other than a picture of the DVD and the catalogue number and further to that link [186] has even been taken down. Although both you and “JuneGloom07” are correct in saying the information I provided isn’t sourced, you can’t find this information on any website but it is 100% correct as I have mentioned before I have ownership of this collection. That entirely aside you have placed so many unnecessary links across the whole page especially when it comes to the international broadcasting section. Most Wiki pages would have a table to display which countries aired it and when. Rather you just have countless links and two poorly worded paragraphs. Looking through the history of this page you and “JuneGloom07” have had so many contributions from people but most of it was been reversed. The purpose of a Wiki is to have a WIP encyclopaedia if the information provided is found incorrect it should be removed however, if it is providing further detailed information that is correct it should be left alone and not removed by two individuals who seem to be running a police state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMLAUS (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If all 6000+ episodes are released on DVD, would you still expect them to be included in a table? Because that thing would be crazy long. From the few articles I've looked at (like A Country Practice), most of them use prose in the Home Media section. The Neighbours page is a Good Article and to keep it that way, unsourced material has to be removed or sourced. The article mentions that the episodes are being released from the beginning, so I think that gives readers an idea of what episodes are on them. If an episode was deliberately missed out for some reason, then that could be mentioned. As for ref #186, the website is currently down, but will be back soon. - <font color="Purple" face="Arial">JuneGloom  <font color="Green" face="Times New Roman">Talk  00:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If I created a separate page away from the main section, would you link it so people can have the option to see specific details of these releases? I can see where you are coming from if they released the “whole” series but let’s be honest it would take years before that would happen and having a five lined table doesn’t detract from the main page but I’m happy to compromise with it to a certain extent. You’re right in saying it’s obvious that it is “From the Beginning” but Shock haven’t disclosed which episodes are on each volume, there is no information anywhere on the internet detailing this and besides volume 1 which says “the first 56 episodes” the other don’t tell you this. I guess the benefit of having a separate page could also provide more details on the other past releases. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMLAUS (talk • contribs) 00:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If you want to create a specific article for this, I would suggest that you create it in userspace before moving to a mainspace article. That way we can see if it would pass as a mainspace article, however it would need to have reliable refererences.  The reason the Neighbours page has so many references is because Neighbours is one of Wikipedia's good articles and has to conform to the strict good article criteria which means everything must be referenced.--5 albert square (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

REVDEL request
I'd like the following revisions of my talk page revdel'ed. On most of these, I am trying to remove possible spam links, and am also cleaning up my TP from some rubbish that, if it were up to me, never would've happened.                    Qxukhgiels (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, I've had a look at these and I don't think that they qualify for revdel under the criteria. As a result I would be unable to carry out this request.--5 albert square (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Drink
So I've been threatening for a while, but now I'm determined — there's going to be a Wikipedia meetup in Newcastle. Do you know a decent pub (something like a Wetherspoon's—family friendly, serves food, good beer, WiFi) within easy reach of the train station? Then I just need a date—it has to be a Saturday or a Sunday and I'm thinking mid-to-late August might work best (but the second Sunday of the month is reserved for London and we have to try to avoid clashes with these). Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ Mitchell (talk • contribs)


 * Hello. Yes there's quite a few pubs in the area of the train statiion.  You have O'Neills which is not a Wetherspoons pub but it is directly opposite the train station and is reasonably priced given it's a city centre pub.  You also have The Mile Castle which is a Wetherspoons pub and is literally just a few minutes walk from the train station.  I think I can make any Saturday or Sunday in August :)--5 albert square (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Newcastle
Do you know The Union Rooms? It looks a little cosier than the other Wetherspoon's. I'm thinking 15 September for the date. Does that work for you? Once we're settled on date and venue, I'll start advertising it— I think there are quite a few Wikipedians in the North East, so hopefully we'll be able to get a good turnout. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I created a page for us. If you're happy with the date and the venue, just take the "(TBC)"s off and signup, then I'll start pushing it. :) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've signed up!--5 albert square (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! It's official now! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Redaction
One more edit summary to be hidden, if you could. Thanks for your help! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 00:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi User:MusikAnimal, that's now done. Sorry 1am here and my broom must've missed that one :)--5 albert square (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm also pretty sure that 64.237.230.232 is another sock puppet. This was the original editor who added the unsourced information to the article and has a very similar IP address. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅--5 albert square (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)