User talk:Mww113/Archive 1

Is is approprate for a non-adminstrator to use theese templates UTM?
 * Of course! May I ask why you ask?  Soxred93 | talk bot 02:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to help clean up vandalism, spam, ect. Mww113 (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Those templates are designed for anyone to use. Feel free to use them! You might want to look at WP:vandalism for more.

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  Soxred93 | talk bot 02:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

User:Argabar12
Have a read of the user talk page: spam page, created by indefinitely blocked user. Simple. --Calton | Talk 16:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry did not know that it was created by a blocked user. Mww113 (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Gaston Taument
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. --Calton | Talk 16:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the article was a stub. I am sorry I was not sure. I did however make the edit in good faith. Mww113 (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I may be deleting (possibly archiving) this from my talk page. Since I made the edit in good faith and I truly thought the article qualified as a stub I see no reason for this to remain on my talk page. Mww113 (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Gavin Wims
The article makes a couple of unsourced claims of notability: "he achieved major acclaim as one of the country's most respected Irish dancers." and "He continued dancing until 2007, during which time he became All Ireland Irish dancing champion" It may be a hoax or a vanity page, but it is coherent enough and makes a couple of claims of notability. Unsourced statements about his lifestyle should be edeleted as violations of WP:BLP. Some might speedily delete it on some grounds, but it looks like a candidate for WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Edison (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The creator of the article should have added a "hangon" tag below the speedy deletion tage and then explaind the notability of the subject on the talk page, rather than deleting the speedy tag. It is easy to write a vanity or hoax article and make undocumented claims of championships or other notability. I noted on the article talk page that the notability claims may be removed if not sourced in a reasonable time, and then there is little basis for keeping the aerticle. AFD would sort it out. Edison (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh?
The IP you specified in the header, I didn't find anywhere. Typo, perhaps?  21 6 55  τalk/ʃign 23:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User talk:21655/Mistakes  21 6 55  τalk/ʃign 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding rollback
You're welcome. Just remember it's only for reverting vandalism. You may also wish to see New admin school/Rollback too. Good luck. Acalamari 22:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) I wouldn't revert warnings in accordance with this guideline; (2) Yes, you can use rollback, undo, etc to revert a mistaken rollback. Acalamari 22:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Acalamari 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lycopene (data page)
This new page is a standard page for many chemicals. (cf benzene (data page)) I created it to test the behavior of the template on lycopene, and I do intend to include content on it. I am well aware of the CSD, but give me some time and the page will be filled out. 23:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but as you can see it is already to late. Please in the future create the page with some context on it, or create it and put  on to it. Sorry! Cheers! Mww113    (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 00:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pete Olson
It's a really painful read that has the look of a sure A7, but I do see down the article that it does say some interesting things. I'm not sure that's notability, but I agree that it gets toward it. Erechtheus (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. -- Shark face  217  20:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Rhodesian Bush War Move
I've been away a few days and only just now saw that you had agreed to mediate, but then closed the case already? I hope it can be reopened. Here is the case for the move: 1) "Second Chimurenga" is the name for the war most widely accepted within Zimbabwe itself, even when English is being spoken, by all parties, including most of those opposed to the ZANU-PF government. 2) "Second Chimurenga" is also supported by academic consensus, although "Zimbabwean War of Liberation" is also commonly used. 3) "Rhodesian Bush War" is rejected by all these parties because it was the name given the struggle by the Rhodesian Front and their supporters, because the name fails to take into account that the war led to the emergence of the modern state of Zimbabwe, finally under black majority rule, which had, after all, been the point of the war in the first place, and because the term "Bush" is both inaccurate and derogatory. The war was not fought entirely in the "bush," and "bush" is generally used to describe something as a more primitive version of something, as in the term "bush telegraph."  4) The Library of Congress lists the war as "Chimurenga War." 5) The name "Chimurenga" is used throughout Africa and the African diaspora, as well as in left-wing circles. Hilmarc (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I closed due to inactivity. I will be happy to reopen the case however. Good to here from you. Mww113   (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 19:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Have added some material on support side. Babakathy (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mww113 - I am again requesting that you remove my name from your page. I tried to make the change myself to save you the trouble but it has been reverted. I believe the following is official Wikipedia policy - "Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely." I am simply asking for my personal details to be removed from this page. Please contact me at my name at gmail.com if further explanation is needed on my part.

My thanks, Gavin. Gavinwims (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinwims (talk • contribs) 18:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again
Hi - just to clarify, I am not threatening you with anything - it just seemed to me that personal details are not to be included in chat pages under the wikipedia rules. I am asking you as a favour to remove the reference. I would like this done for personal reasons (which I would explain by email - this is why I gave you my address). Please contact me if you are considering leaving the reference as it is.

Thanks, Gavin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavinwims (talk • contribs) 16:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
I like to vandalize the sandbox so that I don't feel the urge to do it on other pages, lol. Ghost109 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh no problem, Its just a little shocking :) Mww113   (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, and also sorry I didn't see your talkback thingy notice up there. Ghost109 (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I usually forget myself Mww113   (talk)    (Report a mistake!) 20:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators Rollback
Out of 6000 or so edits reverting vandalism, you pick that one. I take a broad view of the word "unworthy" in the rollback criteria, particularly when I could be doing other, more beneficial edits. It's all relative, you know. -- Rodhull andemu  22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit
Hi again - I do not understand what you mean by 'sock puppet'. I also note that you are not assuming good faith on my part as Wikipedia etiquette suggests, which is disappointing. if you refuse to remove the reference, then I will have to accept that. However, if you wish to find out why I would like it removed, please contact me at the email address supplied.

Best, G. Gavinwims (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet
I have just seen the Sock puppet reference on my talk page. I now understand what you mean, but I can tell you that the account Jmccarthy96 is the one which originally posted the damaging article. I am not a 'sock puppet' - I simply want all trace of the article removed. Once more I ask you to contact me directly by email to explain.

G. Gavinwims (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC) :I have received your email with your permission I will release it to the evidence page on the case.  M w w 1 1 3    (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC) The case is closed. You are not a sock puppet.  M w w 1 1 3    (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)