User talk:Nuttah/Archive 2

Destruction in 15 (band)
I don't feel you have the right to delete this page just because you don't feel it's important. Please consider that other people will find this info helpful, even if you don't. Think about these things, thanks.

Gun Politics in Sweden
Dear Sir, Like many people on this talk page, I am rather incensed that you deleted my article. I spent many hours (yes literally) researching the article "Gun Politics in Sweden." I sought out other users to contribute to the article both here and on firearms boards. There are many gun politics articles which help explain the legalities and politics of firearms laws in varying countries and US states. Such articles exist for gun politics in Switzerland, Finland, Norway, The Czech Republic, The UK, and many non European countries. Such an article did not exist for Sweden and I attempted to fix that.

Not being a frequent contributer, I logged on today to check on the article only to find you deleted it about a month ago. I can no longer access the page nor the discussion of why you wanted it deleted. I request that you provide explanation for this deletion either here or on my own talk page. Thank you and good day. - SB Pete (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This..
Why did you revert my speedy? Personally I think this redirect is not needed anymore, just have a look into whatlinkshere to see that no pages from main space links there. And people won't want to search for this article, 'cause there is Kristin Nelson one.. -- 83.27.132.154 11:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a valid search term. Internal links should never got to redirects. Redirects are there to guide users to articles when there is more than one possible search term. Nuttah68 12:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

BNSF 7695
Thanks, I deleted it. --Core desat 18:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Prodding
Please stop prodding everything per the wikipedia policy 'dont be a dick'. If this constitutes a personal attack then ban me wikipedia! Its just so infuriating when you come looking for information only to find that someone is attempting to delete it!

May I suggest some more useful wikipedia activities such as the missing articles wikipeida projects where i spend much of my time - its much more rewarding to give than to take away eh Francium12 20:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)e

I wish to apologise for my earlier outburst during a period of wikistress. I think a period of wikibreak will be useful once I have improved the prodded articles. Francium12 00:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry! its just you hadn't replyed for a while so I thaught it meant that the subject had been droped, I didn't really know when I had the right to remove the notice. I can see your trying to improve wikipedia and understand why you saw it as vadalism.--Wiggstar69 21:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Lee Mellor and the United Steel Workers of Montreal meet multiple criteria for being notable
I noticed you proposed to delete two pages I had created on the grounds that you don't believe they are notable artists. The rules for Wikipedia say that a notable artist is somebody who meets any ONE of the following criteria:

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries[2] except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble. Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The United Steel Workers of Montreal have had articles written on them in The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, NOW Magazine, The Montreal Mirror and the Toronto Sun. They link to the articles on their website www.uswm.ca.

Lee Mellor has had articles or album reviews in the Montreal Gazette, The Montreal Mirror and the Suburban... the three most important English newspapers in the city. Two of these articles are listed on Mellor's website www.leemellor.com and the review in the Montreal Mirror is available at www.montrealmirror.com. He has also been the subject of articles in Durham this Week and the Oshawa Times - newsdurhamregion.com/news/article/84861.

Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.[3]

Both Mellor and the Steel Workers have toured Canada on multiple occasions. Their own websites attest to this.

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

The Steel Workers are the most prominent representative of Citygrass, which should be evident by reading the articles about them.

Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

Both USWM and Mellor are on national rotation for CBC radio. Google it. CBC Radio is the Canadian equivalent of the BBC. Basically this means that the most important broadcasting entity in the country is playing their music.

Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

Mellor has conducted a half hour long interview with CBC radio which can be heard on www.myspace.com/leemellor and the United Steel Workers of Montreal have actually made a live recording for the Canadian Music Cafe radio show: http://www.canadianmusiccafe.com/2007/schedule.asp

As these musical acts qualify for multiple categories of being "notable" according to Wikipedia's own rules they should not be deleted.

That said, I agree with your proposed deletion of the Citygrass article as I can find no definitions beyound "urban hillbilly" in newspapers or magazines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbeardedbadger (talk • contribs) 00:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Non notable halls of residence
As the original author of the Montague Burton Residences article, I was wondering what constitutes a notable halls of residence and what doesn't. This is not entirely obvious based on which University of Leeds halls have been issued with a deletion warning and which haven't (for example, the halls that are at once both the largest and those furthest away from campus (Bodington Hall) have been proposed for deletion). I can't find anything on the discussion pages about this action, either.

This is not to say I insist on the Montague Burton the article being kept, far from it; I accept that the notability might be arguable. However, if a consistent policy could be agreed upon, it would be easier to rewrite the main University of Leeds article to include better information on accommodation without going into too much detail. However, if the rather detailed Clarence Dock article is kept as a separate article as proposed, where is the line to be drawn between what goes in the main article and what doesn't? --Iwouldstay 01:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

notifying authors
When you PROD an article please remember that it is polite to notify the principal author(s)-- there is a semi-automatic method from the notification box on the article. Agreed there should be a bot to do it, but there isn't. DGG (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

speedies
I notice that a number of your speedy delete tags have been removed by various other admins. Perhaps you should double-check WP:CSD for the criteria, remembering that they are applied narrowly. But most of them seem to be fine, so keep up the good work! DGG (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD suggestions question
Hello. Your contributions indicate a match to a need I have: someone who specializes in merited article deletions. In cleanup runs through Wikipedia, I occasionally encounter clear but controversial or otherwise non-prod candidates for deletion. While I have nominated and debated articles at AfD, my available WP time is maxed out. I feel my meager talents are better employed elsewhere, particularly as a single AfD entry can eat up a great deal of time if it is challenged. You, however, have a strong record of discerning deletion-worthy articles and successfully bringing them through the AfD process, when necessary.

It is also clear that you endure abuse relating to deletions with aplomb. My heartfelt congratulations, when exposed to much less criticism many an editor's restraint has crumbled into bitter fights, intense whining or retiring from Wikipedia.

Would you be adverse to receiving suggestions of anywhere from zero to four or so AfD candidates a week? Naturally, you could choose not to list any suggested candidate you felt was not appropriate for AfD. While I appreciate that this might seem like a way to off-load my dirty work, it has become clear to me that WP operates more efficiently when editors play to their strengths. You have strong experience in AfD deletes, I have much less and little allocatable time to gain more. If you do not wish to accept any suggestions from me, it is not a problem. I simply wanted to ask. Thanks, regardless. -- Michael Devore (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dec 18, 2007

Recently I have added 6 translation of news/reviews
On Naresh Sonee & Brhmaand Pujan ,All concerned notability / reliable sources could your goodselves witness there. News/reviews on above pages in question, please see &check if you are satisfied. Still If your goodself have any doubt or stay un convinced. Kindly spare time and read my discussion page. However if you still insisit I can add few more news/reviews and also can raise a temperory/permanent website carrying  'original scanned newspapers photos in Hindi' of news/reviews which will reflect there. I can give a permanent link in below references or below translated news, clicking on the URL any one can verify facts concerned to my wikipedia article or news/ review translated there.You will find the tranalation all accurate. I once again sincerly regards and empathy to all of your concerned doubts.Howsoever I want to satisfy/convince all of you, once for all. -truly- Alan Sun- --Dralansun (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed prod from 7th Altrincham Boys Brigade
I have removed the prod tag from 7th Altrincham Boys Brigade, 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, it is best not to propose deletion of 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! --  At am a chat 20:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding E-World & Iteva
Regarding the page E-World, which you tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of that it was an article about real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject, I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion because this only applies to the persons themselves, not on their software, albums, etc.. If you still want the page to be deleted, please use the WP:AFD process. Thanks! Admc2006 (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions - more care
Hi Nuttah. Please take more care when applying speedy tags. This edit is clearly inappropriate as the article is not a biography. The article may be of dubious notability but that is what PROD and AfD are for. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Ring road (Hastings)
Hi Nuttah, I noticed the prod you placed on The Ring road (Hastings) was removed on 29 February 2008, but that the problem was not resolved. I propose we take this to AFD, because as you said there is no evidence that this road exists, and even if this is a local term it fails the notability guidelines. Any useful information is already covered in A2100, A28, A259 and A21 anyway. What do you think? Think outside the box 14:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I have taken it to AfD Articles for deletion/The Ring road (Hastings) MortimerCat (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

prod on SNUPY Awards
Hello, I thought I might bring your attention to this. --W2bh (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

incorrect speedy
I removed your speedy on The Johns (Chicago band), since it asserted notability--and had a reference to a full article on them from the Chicago Tribune to support it. DGG (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

incorrect speedy
I understand some of my other edits but Bigtopp will be on ITV and have supported Sonic Boom Six and Reel Big Fish - they are quite important, particularly in the local area (Devon - Reading - London triangle) and have gigs at Reading etc. which I haven't added as I can't find web citations. Sorry, thanks again! Harriellie (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Silverton Goatman
Hi. I've listed the article, which you previously placed a PROD on, for AfD. Please see Articles for deletion/Silverton Goatman. Also, please consider notifying the user when you list an article for PROD. Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 22:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Judy Garland Ancestry
- Do Not Delete - Hello I don't feel that the article should be deleted as it is not a "genealogical" service or summary page. It is an article that describes and overviews teh ancestry of Judy Garland athat is part of her identity and of wider interest. It has equal importance as any of the other sub-articles attached to the main article. Genealogical summaries are quite different in that they are basic lists. I do not see how thsi article is outside of any wikipedia guidelines governign article's content. I disagree with the proposal to delete it. However I would be more than happy to improve it if provided with opinion of what requires improvement to make it read better. Regards Vono (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Saskatoon Club
Here is a newspaper article about the Saskatoon Club: http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/story.html?k=29454&id=3f841654-5aa0-4fd0-aa27-c71bd86ad3f3  You may want to revisit Articles for deletion/Saskatoon Club   --Eastmain (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

House of Frankenstein (play) - non-notable
I'm not entirely sure how to discuss notability on Wikipedia these days. What exactly is needed to prove notability? Is it like webcomics where there's a page-views cutoff? Like websites where there's an Alexa rating? Or do I just need to get off of my tail and post more details about the play? I don't think it's ever been on Broadway, but it's one which I've seen come up repeatedly in community theater lineups, so it is, at the least, commonly encountered. Please give me some guidance on what direction I need to take. If, indeed, it's possible to defend an article against a notability accusation these days. :) -Fuzzy (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Armitage Robinson
You tagged Joseph Armitage Robinson for speedy deletion. The references section includes a book about him, which is a fairly clear indication of notability. As wel, he was the dean of Westminster Abbey. --Eastmain (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

newpage patrol
I note that you're helping out on newpage patrol, tagging inappropriate articles for deletion. This is fine.

What's not fine is that you're not marking good articles as "patrolled". The whole reason for the "patrolled" tag is to reduce duplication of effort. If you don't mark an article as "patrolled" after you decide it's good, then it stays in the unpatrolled queue, adding to the backlog.

So... click the 'patrolled' link. That's what it's for. Okay? DS (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Black Womb
I declined your tagging of Black Womb as a G4. Please note that G4s are only for articles previously deleted after discussion, typically at AfD, and only then if the newly posted article is substantially identical to the deleted version and does not address the reason for deletion; it does not apply to articles previously speedily deleted at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy Curl
I found sources to prove he exists and travels the world as a photographer: Itchytraveller.com and odyssei.com. I added them to the article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sovereign Mercia and Mercia Movement
Well you could have waited for me to say hang on, right? You placed the notice on my page little more than an hour ago. Those are important because they campaign for Mercian self-determination, like the Wessex Society. Please restore them and we can discuss it. ðarkun coll 19:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that you never bother replying, at least on your own talk page, so I've recreated the articles. Please discuss before proposing for deletion. ðarkun coll 19:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Alice Y/ Ting
I declined the speedy, clear assertion of notability StarM  21:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion tag on Panduro Hobby
I'm a bit astonished and irked that you put the speedy deletion tag on Panduro Hobby, so now the article is gone because I haven't logged in for more than a day in Wikipedia. Maybe this company is not notable, but I think that CSD don't applies because "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable". Another user already proposed deletion and then decided that the article might be kept, as you could read the article's talk page. I would have preferred a AFD debate. (Nevertheless, I leave it now like this, because I'm not in any way related to this company and have no further interest in this article.) --Cyfal (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

expertise
i notice you seem to be active on alot of portsmouth articles, i was hoping you could have a look at this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_of_Bere particularly the part about the murder, perhaps you have access to offline sources for the area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.183.230 (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD List of leaders of British regions and territories
You recently attempted to nominate this article for deletion. Unfortunately you did not complete the necessary steps, and so I have removed the listing. If you would like to renominate the article, please follow the steps here in order. Remember to include a summary of why you believe the article should be deleted, quoting relevant policies to support your opinion. Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

List of leaders of British regions and territories
Twinkle messed up and didn't finish the nom. Fixed this for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD#A2
You really must specificy where the duplicate copy exists. Wily D 15:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Grounds for deleting Whittier Conservancy article
I'm kinda new to the Wiki game, so I'm not exactly sure why the Whittier Conservancy article you got deleted was deleted...could you explain why it's A7?

BTW, I can't find it now that you got it deleted...thanx a lot...if you can, could you get somebody to get me the deleted article?

Purplebackpack89 (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Starlims page
Can you help me remove the warnings on the Starlims page. I tried to follow all the guidelines, and even received help from Mgm and CyberGhostface. Mgm helped reword the text and CyberGhostface removed the warnings as a result. I do not understand why the page has warnings again. Please help me with this. Thanks. --Ohadtpa (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why you're deleting the "Hot Box (Appliance)" page
I _THINK_ I've figured out that you're the one who added the 5-day automatic delete coding to the 'Hot Box (Appliance)' page. I finally uploaded and linked in the images I took a few months ago. Why do you think this page needs deletion? Hot Boxes are commonly used in the building trades through out the country, but absolutely NOBODY is going to write a scholarly paper on them, except as some sort of a practical joke. Documenting it in an on-line encyclopedia on the other hand, could clear up some confusion. I just don't get your justification for wanting to delete the page. If practical, please "CC:" your explanation on that page's discussion page. Thanks, LP-mn (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to go ahead and let the page be deleted, then you'd better delete the pictures as well. LP-mn (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Carmen Undeliense is as notable as any other school song
You tried to remove this song saying that it was not sufficiently notable. Given that songs such as Carmen Etonense and various other English school songs are on Wikipedia, I think this is an ill informed assertion. This article is well referenced and links to many other pages. Could you perhaps suggest a way of improving this article, such as adding other songs from Oundle School to a bigger article? I think they would clutter up the main Oundle School page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OOCP (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You say that the article "appears to fall well short of having 'received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'", but like I said, it is well referenced both to an article in the Oundle Society magazine and to its original publication, which is more referencing than Carmen Etonense has. A quick Google Search of Carmen Undeliense brings up numerous references to its publication. It is also mentioned in various books about the school. Should I reference those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OOCP (talk • contribs) 15:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Proposed deletion of Degree programs at NUST
Thank you for the heads up. I have given my opinion here. I am on a semi-wikibreak so I might not be able to follow the proceedings.

P.S: One warning was enough, I got three! Cheers. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gillian Hiscott
I noticed you took part in a deletion debate upon me, and are deleting items on me which in fact, especially with regards to Marie Corelli, whose work I have been promoting have been preserved under the legacy heading, watched and edited by several administrators, who I will be contacting for advice. I feel the deletion was unjustified. I am a playwright, with several classic adaptations and plays published by Cressrelles and Jasper Publishing, used by professional companies and neither of the these publishing companies are connected to me nor vanity publishers. Also my novel has been in the Waterstones bestelling list for it’s category, still there (genre WW2). I don’t believe people are thoroughly checking information before deleting. The so called Ghits mention that most of mine are Wikis is incorrect, if anyone cares to count. On the first only 2 out of the 10 are wikis, and on the second only 1. If you are going to delete – please be sure of you’re facts first. (Gillhiscott (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Regarding your questions about deleted material. Wikipedia inclusion guidelines are rather simple, subjects must be notable and all added material verifiable. Notability is determined by significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. For a person in the UK this would be something along the lines of an article about the subject in the Times, Guardian, Telegraph etc. or articles in multiple local media sources. Notability of a play, book etc would require similar sourcesVerification requires any claims to be backed up, again, by independent reliable sources. Seeing your comments such as 'The article was initially created in order to provide general information on me, as a playwright, for professional individuals who work with me in the theatre industry, and always look up everyone else on a team.' I'd also advise you to read WP:COI and WP:SPAM as your current actions are likely to result in further blocking of your account. Nuttah (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You have misunderstood my remark, and the theatre industry's ways. I can only repeat what has been said on this page - that you do not seem to understand what an encyclopaedia actually is. (Gillhiscott (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC))
 * You may repeat whichever claims you want, but I still advise you to read the guidelines to Wikipedia. Nuttah (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Terra Verde Services
I'm afraid had to take your speedy deletion tag off Terra Verde Services as it has survived an AfD, although I am not quite sure how. If you think it deserves a second AfD, and you think you can make a more persuasive case than I did, then go for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ali shikheey

 * He plays for a club that's at level 9 of the English pyramid. My understanding was that notability extended down to level 11.  Please let me know if I'm mistaken.  NawlinWiki (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, it's deleted. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Appealing sounds appealing
I would love to appeal, Nuttah. How do I go about doing this? MetaphysicalNihilist3 (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Adelaide University Athletics Club
Dear Nuttah, I am wondering what sources are needed to make the Athletics Club a bona fide club? In the past I put in links to archival material on the Club, as well as mentions of it on the Adelaide University Sports Association website. I know it may be difficult for a Wikipedian such as yourself to understand, but communities and organisations CAN exist without a significant Internet presence. Besides, if such resources are not good enough for you, then I think half of Wikipedia should probably be deleted. The Adelaide University Sports Association itself only cites pages of a similar calibre as the Athletics Club did - similarly with the Adelaide University Football Club. Thankyou. MetaphysicalNihilist3 (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
While I had come here only intending to tell you off about re-tagging pages for speedy deletion under a criterion for which speedy deletion had already been rejected (that's a huge no-no), the list of previous warnings you've received for bad newpage patrolling/speedy deletion nominating convince me that merely warning you yet again would be insufficient to prevent you from continuing to engage in such disruption. As such, I've applied a 24 hour block to your accout, during which time it might be advisable for you to read WP:CSD to better learn about speedy deletion, as well as review all your previous mistakes. Please take the time to revise your behaviour, to avoid future escalation. Wily D 17:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you're in requests for unblock now, so some else can review it. That you've been repeatedly warned, and continue to make disruptive tags, and that you response suggests to me you will continue to do so going forward does not motivate me to unblock.  A reviewing admin is free to do as they see fit, of course. Cheers, Wily D  17:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Repeated warnings? Where? You are aware comments on my talk page go back to 2006? Nuttah (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that hurts your case, not helps it. Wily D  17:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've lost me now. I still fail to see these warnings you can see. Lots of comments about articles that have been deleted, some more complimentary than others, some debating issues, but warnings, no. In fact, not one warning template in over three years. Nuttah (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Templates are not what's interesting. There are many messages to tell you you've been making mistakes, some more problematic than others (and re-tagging after declines is definitely a mortal sin, compared to say, the warning I left you in december, which is venal at worst). Wily D  17:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree a simple mistake deserves a block. I disagree that three comments about slip ups in three years deserves a block (when I've patrolled how many articles?), still its obvious your mind is made up. Nuttah (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree a simple mistake deserves a block. I disagree that three comments about slip ups in three years deserves a block (when I've patrolled how many articles?), still its obvious your mind is made up. Nuttah (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Popping in here after unblocking, with a comment to Nuttah. Yes, you have a lot of good CSD tags, also a few dicey ones. Just remember that not everyone who removes CSD tags takes the time and trouble to come over and give feedback. Blocking was a bit extreme, but it might be instructive to review your contributions once in a while and investigate the CSDs that were denied.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I review them all, which is why directly above this section you'll see the discussion I had with NawlinWiki regarding a speedy they turned down. Nuttah (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Since you were focusing on the warnings, I assumed you weren't aware of the declines. I stand corrected. :)-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Edith Corse Evans
Just a friendly note on Edith Corse Evans. I declined the speedy deletion request. Because of the interest in the Titanic, good faith causes me to say that being a passenger is a claim of importance, if not notability. There are multiple hits in a gbook and gnews search -- enough so that I can safely say a deletion would be controversial. If you still think the article needs to go, I'd suggest AfD. HTH-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  17:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For crying out loud, the direct block was lifted two hours ago as is stated in the block log and in FabricTramp's post above. Nuttah (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed the autoblock. Can you tell I rarely unblock people? :) I think it's fixed now. -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the help. Nuttah (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ben Clatworthy
Thanks for the clarification. - Mgm|(talk) 09:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Badock Hall
Hi, I got that wrong, missed the AfD debate. Yes, please revert. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Portchester
Dear Nuttah while you clearly mean well your vandalism is actually detrimental as a whole. Instead of deleting things you could spend your time better by expanding the content on articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.228.86 (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Breathing Port Robinson
Nuttah,

I appreciate you working hard on making sure articles are "legit" on Wikipedia. However, I do feel your "proposed that this article be deleted" in regards to Breathing Port Robinson, was a bit of a "jumping the gun" don't you think? lol.

If you clearly did your research, Breathing Port Robinson is an actual motion picture currently making the festival circuit as we speak. Links to IMDB, Documentary films.net, the official Breathing Port Robinson website, as well as an article from the Niagara This Week Newspaper are clearly marked on the Wikipedia page.

Now, having said that, are these enough independent sources according to Wikipedia, well, maybe not. But does that mean the article should be deleted with in the next 7 days if it's not improved on? Of course not! There is enough evidence and independent sources there to indeed show, that the film is real and does exist. Don't you think a "Help Wikipedia expand this article" etc.. would have been a more appropriate tag? The proposed deletion of this article is ridiculous. Editing is not about proposing deletion, it's about improving... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmlegend (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

New Repertory Theatre
A regional theater company that has its own building, does world premiers. has been around for decades and is covered by major daily papers is patently notable. All that is needed is someone to write the article. In cases like this, I find starting the article will attract the attention of someone familiar with the theater who will edit the article. Sometimes this takes a few months. Meanwhile, please do not confuse lack of notability with having a mere stub for an article. I see from the note above that you sometimes work to fast, and delete without adequate googling first.Historicist (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: Fish Sticks Comedy
Hi Nuttah! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on Fish Sticks Comedy- because: the article makes a credible claim of importance or significance. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Pandering & The Golddiggers page
Hiya, do you have an email address... I can send you a magazine scan of Pandering to show coverage exists outside of forums... Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.92.36 (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Any evidence towards notability, per WP:MUSIC, has to be referenced in the band article. Nuttah (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Love Mag and I-D Mag referenced in the Article... Let me know if not ok and you can of course delete page if doesn't meet guidelines... happy to resubmit page at a later date if more references are required —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.167.191 (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Badgers and other UK baseball teams
Nuttah,

You seemed to have championed deletion of the Bristol Badgers page from Wikipedia. Any reason the London Mets and Croydon Pirates pages didn't attract the same attention from you? I see somebody else has already prod'ed them, and they've both been contested as well.

Do you plan to nominate them for deletion? If not, why not? If so, how would you feel about a page for "Baseball teams in the UK" where the content from all 3 pages would fit - is that a suitable encyclopaedic topic?

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Younome (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Baseball update
Further to my post above and your reply, is there any reason you've still not nominated the London Mets or Croydon Pirates for deletion? I hope it's not that you're in some way biased toward them or against Bristol?

I still think the Bristol Badgers had plenty of independent references to meet the notability requirements, but if that's disputed then surely several teams together (all with a few secondary references) would satisfy the requirements.

(PS- apologies if the way I'm posting to the talk page breaks any wiki-norms, but I'm doing my best to figure it out as I go!) Younome (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebekah Kiely
I also appreciate what you do for Wikipedia, however, you have put a deletion tag on the article Rebekah Kiely deeming it not to be notable. I can assure you that the murder of a 15 year old girl is notable. There are 2 newspaper articles posted to the page as reference. I will be VERY much offended if this article is deleted and I don't see why you see it as important to deem a murder victim not notable.

Please remove your tag and do some research before acting so rashly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bistro-sidecar (talk • contribs) 14:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Portsmouth Live TV
Nuttah,

In relation to the media section for Portsmouth.

I can understand you deem this as advertising but it is factual and relevant to the media page about Portsmouth. Portsmouth Live TV is a online community TV station and we have full backing from Portsmouth City Council. It is one of the first like it in the UK. How would someone go about getting the information on there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portsmouthlivetv (talk • contribs) 19:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gosport twin town vandal
Reported to WP:AIV. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

ONEXENO
The rules for ONEXENO are not an advertisement. There is nothing for sale on the page. It is factual information describing the rules for playing the game. In that sense, it is no different than UNO, SET and numerous other games that post their rules on the Wikipedia.

I notice that somehow the same prejudice applies to 'Whot', the old African card game.

How do you decide which games have the right to post their rules and which ones don't?

18:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC) --RLauzzana (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)--RLauzzana (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Graham Goodlad
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Graham Goodlad. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Graham Goodlad. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Woodward Court
An article that you have been involved in editing, Woodward Court, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TM 21:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Uno bus route SHTL
My article (titled as above) was marked by you for deletion, as it was deemed that the subject was not notable enough. I know I had a week to contest this but I was not around and I would like to know if there is now a way to contest after deletion and get the page back? BigToe7000 (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mark Holloway
Hello Nuttah. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mark Holloway, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''This is not a "serves no purpose but to disparage" G10 attack page. Subject may well not be notable, but as it has already been dePRODded it will have to go to AfD.''' Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)