User talk:AusLondonder/Archive 1

Question
Hi, why did you undo? Precedent in 2010 is for brackets? Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry AusLondonder (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem, I was just curious. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2015
 * added links pointing to Republican Party, Peter Duncan, Owen Jones and Tommy Robinson


 * London mayoral election, 2012
 * added links pointing to Owen Jones and Danny Rich


 * Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation
 * added a link pointing to West London

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

✅ AusLondonder (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You need consensus first
Please do not make widespread changes without consensus. The lists involving countries use the article title name.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United Kingdom general election, 2015 (England), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dudley North. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

✅ AusLondonder (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletes
You keep adding the speedy delete tags to articles, but they don't fit the criteria one bit.--Yankees10 17:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What particular articles are you referring to? AusLondonder (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Without speaking for the OP, I would say that this PROD this PROD is problematic. You claim there are no references, which is absolutely false. What due diligence did you perform to arrive at the conclusion that the subject doesn't meet the GNG? This PROD was supported with a nonsensical rationale, "No credible reason for existence". Your speedy delete nom of Frank Pelzman is improper. You nominated the subject under A7, claiming that there's no credible claim of significance. If the subject is the mayor of a town, it is A) plausible for this to happen and B) reasonable that being mayor might make you notable. Please read Credible claim of significance. With only 500+ edits under your belt, I have to strongly urge you to cool it with the deletion nominations and get some more experience with Wikipedia guidelines first. We're in no hurry to delete articles and your overzealousness is putting potentially useful articles at risk. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In the first case I did not claim there was no sources. I do not believe being a Mayor of a local town is a credible claim to significance, as per WP:POLITICIAN. Nor do I believe a creek has any credible reason for an article. I don't accept I'm putting articles at risk by nominating them. Nice to meet you too, by the way. AusLondonder (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In the first example I used the wrong diff. My mistake. Fixed above or see here. Nextly, you are confusing notability for "a credible claim of significance". For speedy deletions, we're only trying to figure out if there is a claim of significance. "Mayor" is a claim of significance. That doesn't mean every Mayor is notable, and this guy may not make the cut down the road. "Joe Smith is a writer" doesn't claim any significance. "Joe Smith is a writer who has published ten books on mustaches" claims significance. Notability is a much higher standard. I hope this helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

An article that has been proposed for deletion or nominated for deletion cannot be re-prodded
I have removed the prod tag from North Fork Brewery, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-proded, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
You applied a prod to Robert Rennie. Rennie was a General, and, as per WP:SOLDIER, Generals are almost always considered inherently notable.

I wonder if you could explain why you think Rennie should be an exception to this convention? Geo Swan (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SOLDIER is an essay. The article has very few sources. But I'll remove the PROD for now.AusLondonder (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2, 2015
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

May 2015
Hi AusLondonder. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Zutto.../Last Minute/Walk, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. This article does not meet the A9 criteria as the recording artist has an article. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! Michael Greiner 16:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, noted. I do apologise. AusLondonder (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a prod as no evidence of charting nor any reliable sources, just promotional linksAusLondonder (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lost State Records


A tag has been placed on Lost State Records, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Treyhanawalt (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC) This page should not be speedily deleted because… (added other references, cited other independent sources, removed any promotional descriptions) --Treyhanawalt (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Poisoned Arrows: An investigative journey through the forbidden lands of West Papua
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Poisoned Arrows: An investigative journey through the forbidden lands of West Papua, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.monbiot.com/books/poisoned-arrows/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Camden Town with Primrose Hill (ward) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=660823877 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F660823877%7CCamden Town with Primrose Hill (ward)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Assuming Good Faith
I probably find attempts at gay conversion as repulsive as you do. However, quoting a section of WP:OC at Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 7 is more likely to get your nomination passed than ad hominem criticisms of other editors. Thanks. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is AusLondonder's battleground conduct. Thank you. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:.

This block is the result of multiple incidents that were cited at the WP:ANI discussion: you have to comment on contributions, not contributors. Continued incivility will result in longer blocks, perhaps culminating in an indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Nyttend - other users commented on me first, accusing me of having an agenda and acting in bad faith, not to mention the swearing and abuse. I cannot believe this. AusLondonder (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This must be the worst and most selective incident of selective and biased enforcement of all time. AusLondonder (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think that others have also acted problematically, give me your evidence and I'll investigate it. The point is that you've infringed on our civility policy repeatedly and, as far as I can tell, unrepentantly, and as I already noted, you need to take this as a shot across the bow.  Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Nyttend Look here - the admin closed as not abusive enough - what is it I did?

1.This user undid my edit, with an edit summary 'no I don't think so' which seems to breach WP:ESDONTS namely don't 'Make snide comments' or 'Be aggressive' 2.I tried to discuss at User talk:Cassianto but the user was again rather condescending and seemed to be ganging up on me with other users he already knows 3.When discussion began on at Talk:Moors murders, I simply put 'I think it is notable enough for a single line' - however, Cassianto replied 'Then you need to look up the definition of "notable", clearly.' (Ignoring WP:NNC) I believe this breaches WP:CIVIL - when I indicated the editor should read WP:CIVIL they replied 'I did once, and I vowed never to read it again' 4.It is breathtaking the way some editors feel policies don't apply to them. I was not rude to the editor, but I was treated in a condescending and arrogant manner over a very minor matter

The user then preceded to launch a very abusive and malicious attack on me. He linked my 710 contributions [166] and entirely falsely wrote 'Not so ridiculous when you look at his contributions which seem to be all geared around the May elections. This user seems to be on a campaign trial on behalf of UKIP'. This is called blatantly misleading other editors, surely in violation of policies such as WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I have nothing to do with UKIP. I am not a member of any political party. I am not enrolled to vote in the United Kingdom. So these are ludicrous allegations. I have created 21 pages, 16 non-related to the elections. Articles I have created such as Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2015 are very important and been widely edited and viewed. I have also created articles such as United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Wales) in accordance with precedent. I have worked hard on the project for good and in good faith. Examples: List of European Union member states by GDP growth and Mr Galloway Goes to Washington. I have successfully nominated dozens of articles for speedy deletion. As a new editor, I am deeply upset by how hard it is to edit this site without abuse and being treated like a moron (WP:BITE). It certainly is not encouraging for those wanting to make a difference in good faith. Nothing at WP:SPA points to me. 5.The editor has breached multiple policies.

Editor still going. He has written now 'What makes you think I give a fuck about your political leanings?' (despite questioning them) and removed the ANI notification remarking 'what a waste of time'. What is the point of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:BITE?

What did I say that was uncivil? Mellowed Fillmore said 'It is my view that AusLondonder is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. He is likely to remain a problematic editor and I'm not sure that any more patience needs to be shown' - yet I have created 27 pages including Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2015 and List of European Union member states by GDP growth. How can they possibly say that with your agreement? I will address each other point at the ANI if you wish. AusLondonder (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So it's not abusive to say 'fucking', 'fuck', 'bullshit', accuse of WP:SPA accuse of breaching WP:SPA but what I did deserves a ban? Look here The admin said this abuse did not even deserve a warning - yet my conduct deserve a block this is utterly unbelievable. AusLondonder (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Nyttend...AusLondonder (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For one thing, please read the forum-shopping page: I will not attempt to over-rule a decision at a closed discussion, especially one so recent. Meanwhile, linking your contributions and using them as a basis for saying "He seems to be on a pro-ukip campaign" is not a problem of the sort: maybe it's inaccurate, but unless it's a long-term pattern of behavior (e.g. he's harassing you long-term), it's not something deserving sanctions.  The problems that led me to block you are not a matter of individual words; it's behavior patterns, with things like ad homines together with what looks to me like a battleground approach.  Your comments here reinforce that: you need to stop beating the dead horse of "Everybody else is hating on me" and stop resuscitating arguments that have already been closed.  If you continue spending this much space, and wasting this much time for other people, you'll soon be ignored at best.  Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But wasn't it your decision User:Nyttend? Can I appeal an expired block? I only even responded to much more abusive attacks, I never attacked anyone else first. Editors accused me of being a sock, or WP:SPA with no evidence, in contravention of policy. I have never sought to engaged in battleground behaviour. I also want to 'resuscitate' as I feel the block besmirches my record and was deeply unfair. AusLondonder (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Cameron's Coup
 * added a link pointing to Faber


 * Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2015
 * added a link pointing to Workers Revolutionary Party


 * Meat Market: Female Flesh Under Capitalism
 * added a link pointing to Red Pepper


 * Poisoned Arrows: An investigative journey through the forbidden lands of West Papua
 * added a link pointing to West Papua


 * Sarah Hayward
 * added a link pointing to Channel 5 News


 * You Can't Say That
 * added a link pointing to Chris Mullin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

✅ AusLondonder (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, User:FreeRangeFrog, in what way was it a copyright violation? Certainly news to me....AusLondonder (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind that, the bot flagged it because you reproduced the quotes, but quotes are obviously not copyvio. I've restored it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2015 London general election protest


The article 2015 London general election protest has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * NOT NEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police


The article Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * essentially promotional.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mafia State (book)


The article Mafia State (book) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * essentially promotional. Buzz words from a review do not make for notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of City of Sin: London and its vices for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article City of Sin: London and its vices is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Sin: London and its vices until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2015 London general election protest


The article 2015 London general election protest has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not notable yet, only 100 protesters according to LadyLeitmotif, a mere storm in a tea cup for now.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lerd the nerd wiki defender  15:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 2015 London general election protest for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 London general election protest is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2015 London general election protest until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of A Scandal in Belgravia (book) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Scandal in Belgravia (book) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/A Scandal in Belgravia (book) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Guantánamo: America's War on Human Rights for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Guantánamo: America's War on Human Rights is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guantánamo: America's War on Human Rights until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 2015 Reclaim Brixton protest for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 Reclaim Brixton protest is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2015 Reclaim Brixton protest until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)