User talk:Dontforgetthisone

Page Name
Hi there, Dontforgetthisone. I notice you recently changed the name of Methodist College Belfast to Methody, redirecting it to the page. I wanted to let you know that I have reverted that change. Firstly, you provided no reasoning as to why you changed the name - this is especially important as the official correct name of the school is Methodist College Belfast, so our naming guidelines would suggest that we use that name for the article. In addition, there was no consensus anywhere for the name of the article to be changed. If you think the article's name should change, I suggest you start a discussion at the talk page. Before you do that, I would advise you to read and familiarise yourself with our naming policy. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey there ItsZippy - most people now use the term Methody, and Methodist College Belfast is now technically disused in Education, with all now referring to the school as Methody. Wiki also says that pages should have their Commonname which Methody is. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used - taken from Wikipedia Commonname Dontforgetthisone (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Dontforgetthisone, thanks for replying to me. You raise a good point about the naming policy; however, I would personally like to see third-party reliable sources which demonstrate the common name of the school. Things like local news sources which refer to the school by name would be useful. I think it would be a good idea to reach consensus on this issue with other editors - I will start a discussion on the Methodist College Belfast talk page - could you please give your opinions there? Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Braniel for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Braniel 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/Braniel 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
hello,

before voting, please re-read WP:AFD, from top to bottom. It does not appear that you understand this process. For example you meant a non-notable song should be merged to the album's article or even to the band's article. Thank you.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 10:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, you have your opinions, I have mine. We may agree on some things and disagree on others. I was initially going to say delete but I thought a merge would be good if more references were add. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Lynott
Was he musically active during 1986? It doesn't matter in the slightest whether he said he was or wasn't - the fact is he wasn't. Four days, spent dying in hospital - use some common sense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Lets say he thought he could recover, after all, he had expressed that he wanted to bring back Thin Lizzy before his collapse on Christmas day. Like other other famous people, they are all active until the day they died, so I can't see why Phil Lynott isn't given his credit despite being in hospital. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not about what he thought he might do, it's about what he did. "Years active" means the years in which they did what they were notable for, i.e. between the beginning of their career and that career ending, whether they wanted it to or not. Lynott might have thought aged 10 that he'd be in a rock band - it doesn't mean he was active from 1959. Between 1965 and 1985, he was performing and/or recording. During 1986, he didn't perform or record, or come close to doing so. He was in a coma for most of that four day period. He was not musically active during 1986. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies
I (very briefly) blocked this account, mistaking it for a similarly-named sockpuppet account of a disruptive user on C.S. Lewis. It was clear on examining your contributions that I was mistaken, and so I unblocked. Sorry for my mistake.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries, hahaha Dontforgetthisone (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, now you have something to look at in your block log. Just so you know, the article's been plagued by a user originally called, who thinks he's in a real war to expunge references to Lewis's Irishness. He recently created accounts with names like ,  and , so your username, editing that article, tripped an alarm until I looked closely at your contribution history.   Acroterion   (talk)   22:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Phil Griffin


The article Phil Griffin has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Club Oranje T 10:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've reinstated the BLPPROD tag you deleted per BLPPROD as the reference your provided is not a reliable source. Please do not remove the tag unless you can provide a source that could be considered reliable to Wikipedia standards.-- Club Oranje T 09:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Page has been userfiyed Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just curious: why are you making so many changes to The Griffin, but not addressing the key issue: providing sources to verify that the story is notable? None of the details matter if you can't fix that, because if you can't, the article will be deleted.  I'm more curious than anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have things that could make Phil Griffin and The Griffin notable, but a) I can't find a online source, and b) I don't know which newspaper and other things that had these notable things in them, so therefore I don't want to put something big on without evidence. I know the article is weak but once I fully research and find things, I will be able to write them in. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources don't have to be online, they just have to be [{WP:RS|reliable]]. So, for example, newspapers can count (if the newspaper is reliable) even if there is no online link. Blogs are never reliable, so the won't. You've still got a few more days before the AfD closes. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The disambiguous name
I see you are getting your wires crossed on Ireland, this is not the country but the ISLAND article. That said when used in a list form of countries without pipelink its the state. Where you see IRELAND pipelinked to Republic of Ireland its the state. I came across your four star pizza edit, thats how I found out. WP:IMOS shows how manual of style is applied to Ireland - all of it - articles. There are various reasons for this many of which have been dicussed for years. Dont feel bad about the mistakes, I just spent a good part of the evening changing over 50 articles where people have either like yourself have made a genuine mistake or are trying to make a polical statement. And happy New Year!Murry1975 (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just made it a bit more clear on the article, dont apologise for it , a genuine mistake anyone can make your summary showed you honestly were editing to improve accuracy. Read the IMOS page it will help you. I was on here for months before I got enough confidence to edit and I still made mistakes , and probably still do. Most editors Assume Good Faith when dealing with edits , some will get snappy - which usually comes for the same type edits being made , one of mine was to insert Ireland in a senstive article without reading the consensus and history got it reverted very impolitely , having said that I still believe I am right but I can not go against consensus so I will leave it. Dont worry about it learn and ask peoples opinions - experienced editors are usually understanding.Murry1975 (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios
Please do not continue to add or restore character screencaps to the actor's personal article - they cannot be claimed under fair use in the BLP articles and it is a copyright violation to add or restore them. This is absolute policy and cannot be overwritten with the fact it may be done on other articles. If you know of any instances where the screencaps are being used in BLPs then they should be removed immediately as well. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Waterloo Road
Hi there, I've noticed you've reverted a couple of edits regarding the depature of Finn Sharkey. The Waterloo Road move to Scotland was reported by local newspaper Inverclyde Now, which seemed to confirm that Finn was not one of the characters making a move. I was therefore just wondering where you were sourcing information which was deeming the above incorrect? Cheers,RyanP92 21:02, 7 April 2012 (BST)


 * I take it you just created this account because I reverted the other edits, I may be wrong but an IP check can sort that. Anyway, as far as we know, McMullen isn't leaving. Finn Sharkey was stated to be leaving in series 6 by some users, and again in the last part of series 7, all of which were wrong, which is why I haven't planned to put him in. Also other cast which as far as we know are returning are not in the list. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I created the account as I felt it would be more beneficial having one, so I'm not hiding the fact it was me who edited he was leaving, in case it seemed that way. I am almost certain what I believe to be correct as he wasn't mentioned in the Inverclyde Now artcile ( minus Heather Peace who will resume filming in June due to other commitments ), and his Twitter would also suggest the same, but I'm happy to leave things as it is, until it is 100% confirmed. RyanP92 21:19 7 April 2012 (BST)

Now I know Twitter is what there on and to be honest with your I source my stuff from there too like, but some of the more serious ones on here will not tolerate twitter as something to go by just to let you know. I'm just thinking that a few other names that aren't there should be, meaning that it may not be all the cast. I know George Sampson's gone but I'm not sure of Jack. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Eddsworld Main Image Change
Hello, I noticed that you changed the main image of the Eddsworld article to a newer picture (as seen on the YouTube account I believe). I believe that this image is unsuitable though. The heading-image on the main website and on the Eddsworld YouTube channel seems more appropriate, sense they use it much more frequently to indicate the series. There are plenty of art-work by Edd featuring the characters with the caption "Eddsworld" (as the image was changed to), yet only the original image is used among all media utilized by the series. Do you not agree? I wish to change it back, but would like your opinion on this sense it was your edit. Zach Winkler (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You must be mistaken, I haven't added or changed any images. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct, sorry for the mistake! Sorry. Zach Winkler (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Haha, no problem. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

F1 2012
Just because something hasn't been done on previous season pages, that doesn't automatically make it a bad choice. Just look at the report section of the 2012 Formula One season page. Last year, we didn't use a sub-heading for each individual race. But we introduced them this year, and this makes it far easier for users to find individual content instead of having to read through everything. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Had a funny feeling I would be getting messaged about this, take to discussion? Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'm just pointing out that just because something hasn't been done before, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. Does that make sense? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Waterloo Road - Organisation of the Page
Hello. I noted that you recently added headings (ie Part A, B and C) to Season 7. I think that it is a good first step into adding some coherence to the article. Although the article is a good start, I think that it is slightly convoluted. In short, I believe that the headings are a good idea. Thank you. (Galaxycat (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC))

I have reverted it. One users favour is not a catagorical decision. This should be made open to everyone, in the talk section of the article. Also, Series 7 is only refered to as Parts A, B and C by few. They are being distriputed as Autumn, Spring (DVD sales as with Series 3-6) and its presumed C will be Summer. The problem is you are creating an untidy and unecessary addition to the article. It was tried once before and was deamed pointless. If you want to make the article clearer, try condecening the information. There is far too much in the Series 7 section as it is, especially as the sections you have created are uneaqual. How you possibly think it makes it clear to users when Part A has a paragraph, Part B slightly longer and Part C is twice the size of both together is beyond me. Anyway, as I have stated, open this up for discussion in the talk section of the article before you make this change. Asking one other user is not an informed decision. It is a complete lack of opinion towards other users and pretty selfish too ShedMediaUK (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well by now reverting that, you have breached Wiki rules and unless you revert your revert, we will both be pending an investigation for breaking the revert rule. "Series 7 is only refered to as Parts A, B and C by few" would that not also be THE BBC, making the 3 parts notable. I do also note a user has left a message to you about this on your page already but an investigation and re-view will sort everything now unless you change your mind. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if I caused offence. This was not my intention. Perhaps it is a discussion which can be opened up in the 'talk' page. (Galaxycat (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC))

Don't be ridiculeous Dontforgetthisone. Im reverting your edit because it is you breaching the rules of wikipedia. Do not speak to me in the tone you are using. Above anyting else, you are making youself look very childish. As far as you mention the BBC, its not the point - the BBC do NOT make the programme - Shed Productions do. The BBC are actually not referring to the series in any way, other than a series of 30 episodes - check the website. And even further to that - if they are being distributed as Autumn, Spring etc as with Series 3-6, that is far more notable. And with regards Galaxycat leaving a message on my page, he did yes - but not to say what you edited was what should happen, they asked if i agreed - to which I haven't been available to reply until now. You need to accept that an edit you make must not be to the detrement of others, a concept you are not grasping, as I have witnessed on several occassions in recent days.

Galaxycat, you have not offended me. Please don't worry. Yes i agree, it should be opened up to the talk page before any final decision is made, its only fair. What's not fair our edits made by users who think they have the right to go ahead and make any which edit they chose without actually asking a wider perspective (Dontforgetthisone). If the general perspective deams the article to be presented in that way, then so be it, but as stated, the view of two users over a wider audience is not a fair edit ShedMediaUK (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What tone? I'm typing. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The tone you are portraying. You never heard of expressive aggression? ShedMediaUK (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

See discussion: Talk:Waterloo Road (TV series)

One Direction
I was blocked because of involvement with two user accounts in one disscusion not my edits. my edits were fine on one directions page the recor label is syco records - all those dance,teen pop all fall under pop - the linking for best british single is to make it more important - performance can be found on main article of 7th series which is given and performance table is to big for main article see: leona lewis performances are not given either good day :) AdabowtheSecond (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Female Formula One drivers
Hi Dontforgetthisone. Can you please re-add your comment regarding Category:Female Formula One drivers at the centralised merger discussion page? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hulkenberg's F1 contract
Hi Dontforgetthisone,

I've had to undo this edit of yours on the 2013 Formula One season for two reasons. Firstly, you claimed that Hulkenberg was not on a multi-year deal with Force India. However, the reference supplied in the article has the deputy team principal clearly stating that Hulkenberg had a long-term arrangement with the team. And secondly, the reference you gave that you said contradicted this makes no mention of Hulkenberg's contract with Force India, so it cannot be used as evidence that he did not have a multi-year deal with the team. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but states he hasn't been formally confirmed for next season, yet the reference for the multi-years say both were signed, which is why I don't beleive it was a multi-year. With some websites saying the team hasn't announced the line up yet. ( and )


 * Fearnley's comments are applied to both di Resta an Hulkenberg. Although the reference you supplied contradicts his statement about di Resta, it is not proof that his statement is equally-untrue with regards to Hulkenberg. It is entirely plausible that Hulkenberg had a multi-year deal, and that di Resta was on a two-year deal with an option for 2013 that has not been activated yet; the net effect of this is that both drivers' contracts would satisfy the conditions of Fearnley's comments.


 * Right now, we can prove that Hulkenberg had a multi-year deal with Force India. We have a senior team member who is both named and quoted as saying so. Until such time as you find a reference that explicitly states taht Hulkenberg was not on a multi-year deal - and the source you referred people to does nothing of the sort - then we cannot remove any references to Hulkenberg being on a multi-year deal because we have a source that supports it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Gutiérrez
Hi Dontforgetthisone. FYI, I have reverted your most recent edit to Esteban Gutiérrez. By WP:F1 convention, we don't add new season results tables until just before the first race of the new season. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Loeb
Loeb was moved to the manufacturer section, because Citroen have announced that he will be one of their two drivers designated to score manufacturer points when he competes. The references make this pretty clear. When he was listed as a non-manufacturer entry, it was because knew he would be compteing, but had no proof that he would be a designated points-scorer. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Karl Michael
Hi. As you were a participant in Articles for deletion/Karl Michael, you might wish to provide your opinion at Articles for deletion/Karl Michael (2nd nomination) as the article was speedily renominated. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)