User talk:Coderzombie/Archive 2

New Signings
Hey, ya, I am not a fan of using Shakeers site. I already know the guy and it is just him making a blog, which is fine, but it takes the reliable aspect away from his site and therefore I rather never use it as a source. Goal.com is 100% fine and excellent find there. Also, in regards to Pune, we need to wait till the club confirms a transfer or signing as they do update there site regularly. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ya, I would wait. If Zeleney is signed and article will be made about it. When Pune make the signing they will announce it. This is how it is on wikipedia, we wait until it is confirmed by the club unless the club does not make an announcement themselves. In this case, we should wait. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kartika Rane


The article Kartika Rane has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no indication of notability, WP:GNG

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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013–14 Bengaluru FC season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shilong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Redirects to deleted pages
I've just closed your two nominations at WP:RFD as speedy delete under criterion WP:CSD - pages which are dependent on a deleted or non-existent page. For future reference, you can just tag these pages with or  ("redirect to a non-existent page") when you come across them and you think that deletion is better than retargetting them somewhere else (which you can do boldly). If you aren't sure then do feel free to bring them to RfD to be discussed (before or after a retarget). Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

R Dhanarajan
I've undeleted R Dhanarajan; feel free to update it and add the new source. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 09:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World Chess Championship 2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marshall Gambit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Keeping this just for record. Coderzombie (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer userright granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi I hope I am doing this correctly, wiki says you left me a message but I don't know how to view it could you send it again or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.128.91 (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Section posted on your user page
The below section was posted on your user talk page twice by an IP editor so i figured i might just as well move it here. I collapsed it for obvious reasons though. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You know CoderZombie, if it's one thing that really really really annoys me, is pseudo-intelligent people as yourself who for the last year and a half... have been marking everything as "VANDALISM" all because of their extreme willful ignorance of the topics they edit. I can't even count how many times your edits show "VANDALISM" as the reason for you editing whatever particular entry, and when one actually investigates at least a number of your 'edits' where you put 'vandalism' as your reason for the edit, it becomes CLEAR that you either are being DISHONEST, or you are NO WHERE near qualified to edit a host of entries, OR you are not even educated enough or even self-educated to see your GROSS ERRORS by basically classifying any entries that don't 'meet your very little knowledge of the world' as "vandalism" when MOST of your "VANDALISM" claims are NOT VANDALISM but actually information that is BEYOND YOUR GRASP and COMMAND to know and BEYOND your very small microcosmic SCOPE of knowledge of the world you di

Do yourself a favour, you should only be editing things to do with what you list on this page. I have been scanning your 'edits' (the last 150), and the majority of them are considered "VANDALISM" by you, according to your intense ignorance of history and many realities of this world you have no clue about. For example, you removed a name something like BAULSESAR (or something to the effect of that spelling) on one of the entries dealing with the Bible, when historically and accurately, IT WAS INDEED A NAME associated with the subject at hand, and what did you do? You removed the word under the reason of 'vandalism' once again when IT WASN'T VANDALISM! IT WAS A PROPER CORRECTION OF HISTORICAL FACT! Is that what you do? Where anything much beyond your scope of little knowledge is considered "VANDALISM" and thus you remove REAL FACTS to insert LIES AGAIN? So because YOU pretend to know much more than you do about history, so because you have quite the arrogance and vanity to believe that you are old enough to know Near East history in regards to the Bible and other Mesopotamian (which you really don't), it's clear to see, you are using your position at WIKI-LIE-TO-YOU to perform MANY EDITS of people's contributions that show they have more knowledge of such histories then you do (WHEN the minority is vandalism), and what do you do? You mark it as "VANDALISM".

So basically, your juvenile online character is quite easy to tell that you are actually DOING MORE DAMAGE THEN GOOD... and your position of a certain power has WENT TO YOUR HEAD! and you are only helping to contribute greatly to the degrading level of intelligence in the world, and lack of knowledge of factual history in the world by continuing to 'edit' certain contributions as "vandalism" WHEN IT'S NOT VANDALISM YOU SUPER IGNORANT CHILD OF HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD outside of your land of origin! it's young minded, pubescent minded, juvenile minded narccistic arrogant pseudo intelligent children who have access to editing entries on WIKI-lie-to-you as yourself who are doing the world a bigger disservice by spreading PROPAGANDA, LIES, DECEIT, FALSE INFORMATION, UNINFORMED PERSPECTIVES etc based on a very LIMITED and POOR knowledge of the world and it's histories that deal with what makes this world be run like the business it is! You shouldn't even be EDITING ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE BIBLE and MANY other topics you falsely believe you have the intelligence and awareness to re-edit seeing as how YOU KNOW MOSTLY LIES, RUMOURS AND HALF TRUTHS! For e.g., there were NEVER "3 Wise men"! It's just 'wise men' with NO NUMBER stipulated in the New Testament Gospel Accounts. And it's NOT not "Gospels" because there is NO WHERE in the english Bibles before 1780 (since after is when they became really corrupted) that the word "GOSPELS" exists... it's ONE GOSPEL AND 4 ACCOUNTS OF THAT GOSPEL! And it's FOOLS like you who have been given WAY TOO MUCH POWER and ACCESS to edit things YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS EDITING SEEING AS HOW YOUR COMMAND OF WORLD EVENTS, CURRENT EVENTS, INTERNATIONAL EVENTSand especially NEAR EAST HISTORY outside of INDIA is literally BANKRUPT AND ILLITERATE! So it's the GOSPEL ACCOUNTS, and NOT THE GOSPELS, which the latter is ERRONEOUSLY taught by those who "THINK" they know the Bible though they never read it, and it's also FALSELY taught by those who DO know the bible but not well enough because they are repeating a 'common error' that has become habit to believe it's what the Bible states WHEN IT DOESN'T!

It's morally reprehensible, disgusting, tragically brainless that you have been editing almost every entry as "VANDALISM" when you are too UNEDUCATED in such areas, too IGNORANT in such areas, too FOOLISH TO EVEN KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'VANDALISM' AND 'FACTUAL HISTORICAL and MODERN HISTORY CORRECTIONS!" You are only helping the people of the world BECOME INCREASINGLY MORE ILLITERATE and LESS KNOWLEDGEABLE of FACTUAL history and modern events everytime you edit something with the reason of "VANDALISM" when MOST of your edits are NOT DUE TO VANDALISM but YOU NOT KNOWING ENOUGH ABOUT THE TOPIC/SUBJECT AT HAND TO PERFORM A PROPER OBJECTIVE EDIT AS BEST AS POSSIBLE according to the HARDEST EVIDENCE available! YOU ONLY COMPOUND THE SPREAD OF PROPAGANDA, LIES, IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY! You don't have ANY idea as to why that "Christian Mysticism" entry was edited on March 18, 2014 in it's first line and ONLY first line about 'decepticon' and truth needing to be seeked as it was before you reverted it DO YOU? It was to SOLIDIFY an ongoing experiment on WIKI-LIE-TO-YOu that the MAJORITY of those who are chosen to edit "WIKI-LIE-TO-YOU" don't even have the cognitive, mental faculties nor abilities nor the wide-spectrum education/knowledge of the world and it's inner workings that determine life for eveyrone on this planet nor have the COMMAND of KNOWLEDGE of FACTUAL HISTORY to properly EDIT the entries on WIKI-LIE-TO-YOU ABOUT WORLD HISTORY/POLITICS/ECONOMICS/FINANCE/GEO-POLITICS/ARCHAEOLOGY/ANTHROPOLOGY/SACRED TEXTS LIKE THE Bible and many other subjects to see why most of your entries marked as "VANDALISM" is NOT VANDALISM but actually evidence of HOW IGNORANT YOU ARE ABOUT THE WORLD and evidence of being VERY UNCULTURED and very narrow-minded and not KEEN at all.

Actually you know what? Since wiki-lie-to-you is a CIA front to dumb down the world and cause nothing but mass confusion of what is fact and what isn't fact in the world, and what is factual history and what isn't factual history, in order to dumb down the population so much that they are easily deceived and controlled by the powers that be, you might as well keep editing the entries DISHONESTLY AND FALSELY marking them as VANDALISM, and contributing to the dramatically worsening average level of intelligence of the average man/woman/child in this world since you don't have the cognitive ability to recognize the intense damage you are causing to MANY around the world all based on your own lack of knowledge and awareness of many topics that only further reinforces your LACK OF ability to perform such a service, which isn't a service, bu more tragedy. Be proud of yourself since you vainly already seem to be quite proud of yourself in that microcosm reality you live in.

Reversion mistake
Hello, you just undid a reversion of vandalism at [[Keyboard instrument. I realize you've only just started using STiki, but please be careful with it. Graham 87 14:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:Assessment of Indian football articles
All current assessments are listed here. What I usually do is have the ratings blank on the talk page so that a more experienced and less biased user can do the rating. Like your comment, that you believe our articles are good, I would disagree. Some are great but the grand majority are still works in progress. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean. Usually if I see that then I just remove the rating, making it nothing. Usually an editor will find it within a day and give it a new rating. I have done that tons of times. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Nantucket
Oh wow. This must be the first time in the history of, I don't know, EVER, that something got deleted on the English Wikipedia which still stands in the German one. Usually it's the other way round. I'm truly baffled. --JimTurbo (talk) 07:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

vote for the pimp article
Hello, the article gives information about the root of the popular hashtag of "Vote for the pimp", it is important as the reader of wikipedia would understand why it is commonly used in Egypt and world wide over twitter now.Andri Kuawko (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

baseball
i want to make Sinhalese baseball Wikipedia page how can i get access for That because his is a  featured article ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isuru99 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Bangalore Super Division
You... I like you. You are indeed correct and thank you so much for providing a source with that which actually comes from the BDFA... perfect sourcing right there man!!! I will change it accordingly then! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and here. Just so we can try to remain organized this season... cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is the "2014 ISL season" because there are play-offs or finals at the end. See 2014 Major League Soccer season or 2013–14 Argentine Primera División season. Anyway, this has already been said officially as a 2014 event and so tha is how I have it. Your source literally said "2013-14 Bangalore Super Division" so I decided that would work. Hope this explains. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ohhh, did not realize, sorry about that but ya, with "season" it is how it is done with usual footy articles with play-offs and what not. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Steath (The Americans)
Hmm, I see - at the time, I didn't notice that you had created the page; the deletion request just said it was misspelled, which is not a reason for deletion. Easy/Common/Plausible misspelling are typically kept as redirects to the article, because the first time a typo happens in unlikely to be the last, and there's not really an upside to deleting such redirects. If you had moved the article, it would be eligible for G7 speedy deletion (though someone else should recreate it later when they realise it's missing), but since someone else moved the page, I don't think G7 really applies here either. If you're dead-set on having it deleted, you should probably use WP:MFD, though I'd urge you to consider why you want it deleted before that. You're not the last person who's going to make that typo, so it's helpful to potential readers of the article to send them to it. Wily D 13:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"Fixing" redirects
Hello. You may not be aware of WP:Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken, which advises against making edits like changing Manchester United to Manchester United. Might be worth having a look, to save yourself a bit of work, and also save yourself possibly falling foul of WP:AWB #4, about using it to make "insignificant or inconsequential" edits that have "no noticeable effect on the rendered page". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Fixing redirects does look like the sort of thing that's worth doing, we've all been there or somewhere similar :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)