User talk:Rrburke/Archive 6

Appreciate it
Keeping my user page vandalism-free. --Moni3 (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

961 AACS
I have been attempting to add information to the 961 AACS' wiki page and you have removed it. I am currently employed by said squadron and therefore would consider myself an appropriate source of information. I would appreciate if you would leave my edits on the page, thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkelly3201 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

- Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 04:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:OR section 3, you yourself are not a reliable source. Any information added to Wikipedia must meet our standards of verifiability.


 * All well in hand: I've already replied to the editor on his own talk page. --RrburkeekrubrR 14:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

- Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 22:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that right after I left that comment.

Not that I'm aware of...
I thought I saw that a little while ago on the new user log. Looks like somebody creating accounts for the sheer heck of it. I'll look into it. Thanks! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

DO-178B Page
Thanks for pointing out my mistakes on DO-178B. We are not trying to spam or overdue our content; but rather we just have so much material that users can use. However, I did change the titles of our links to be in compliant. Please let me know if still needs updates:

Regards; Reza Madjidi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madjidi (talk • contribs) 16:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Lael Anson Best

 * Added more External links from which text will be prepared citing those as references; adopting this page, though I am beginner.
 * All arrows have been suppressed.
 * More content will be added.

Patelurology2 (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Patelurology2 (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Jake & Amir's sock drawer
Thanks for sorting my talk page. Whilst they were doing it I was blocking their sleepers - J&A 05 and 06 so hopefully that is it at least for 24 hours until the autoblock wears off. Thanks again, Nancy  talk  16:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. --RrburkeekrubrR 16:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil Vincent page
I am not sure what happened to the Phil Vincent page, but as I pressed save a blank page came up. Please revert it to my last edit before the blank page as I have written more for the page. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SheffieldHoop (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message clarifying what happened. The material you added previously should be accompanied by a verifiable source before it's added again. Cheers! --RrburkeekrubrR 18:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Phil Vincent is actually my grandfather. A lot of pages contain wrong information about him, hence why I was changing the page and improving it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SheffieldHoop (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that the information you're adding is true, but the ability for other editors to verify that information added to articles has previously been published in a reliable source is a basic requirement for all Wikipedia article content. Things you happen to know first-hand, even when true, are considered original research and are not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --RrburkeekrubrR 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For reverting the vandalism in my talk page. See you around! --Defender of torch (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Lael Anson Best page.
Greetings.

I've seen you've marked that page for (a possible) deletion. I think it is well sources and I know the information is true. I lately edited the page - added some formatting and replaced external links with references.

Please let me know if anything is missing, I'd be happy to fill in the blanks.

Giladbarkai (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. My concern is that the subject of the article doesn't meet Wikipedia notability criteria -- in particular, the General notability guideline and the criteria for biographical articles set out at Notability (people).


 * I note that the article cites no independent sources to establish the subject's notability. A principal test of notability set out by the General notability guideline is whether the subject has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  I could not find sufficient source material to satisfy this guideline, which is why I nominated the article for deletion.  If you are aware of such sources, please add them to the article reduce the likelihood of deletion.


 * If you happen to be an associate of Dr. Best, please be aware that Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editors from writing on subjects to which they have strong personal or professional connections. Please consider reviewing  Conflict of interest. --RrburkeekrubrR 19:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I know Prof. Dr.Lael Anson Best, who is an alumnus of my school, though junior, but with considerable achievements and is 'representative and ambassador' in Israel for our school, the Rajkumar College, Rajkot and listed as such as a notable alumnus.

Patelurology2 (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. If you are aware of independent secondary sources that would establish that Dr. Best meets the General notability guideline and the criteria for biographical articles set out at Notability (people), please add them to the article to reduce the chance of its being deleted.  However, if you are an associate of Dr. Best, please first review Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. --RrburkeekrubrR 19:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Patelurology2 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Patelurology2 (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Addition to External links for sources.. further sources evaluation will be done
 * Viewed all of above including the entry placed on top dated Jan 30, 2009. Will work to help find additional sources and convert ext links to ref as done by me and other editors.

User page
I know you edited the page since then but I think you might have missed this. something lame from CBW 01:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I had just noticed. And thanks for the block. --RrburkeekrubrR 01:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ottawa Police Service
The IP editor has some COI issues, and isn't interested in communicating or taking advice; I'd appreciate it if you could keep an eye on the article.  Acroterion  (talk)  18:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added it to my watchlist. The IP belongs to cornwallpolice.com and is geolocates to Kanata, a suburb of Ottawa. I haven't yet had a thorough look through the history: does the editor somewhere identify him/herself as affiliated with the Ottawa  Police Service?  The contributions are unsourced and the history of copyvios might be enough to treat the contributions presumptively as problematic and revert the whole bunch. --RrburkeekrubrR 19:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to scan the OPS website to see. I've blocked them before, you'll note, for promoting the OPS Gift Shop, although I'm reluctant to do it now that I've done my own edits that could be regarded as involvement in content. I suspect an enthusiastic volunteer who's deermined to own the article. It's turning into a swamp - see my last edit there.  Acroterion  (talk)  19:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw. What a mess. I'm try to sift through the article history.  I don't see a recent version that could be reverted to that isn't afflicted with peacockery and other co-morbidities, so it may talk actual work. Alas! --RrburkeekrubrR 19:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a polite but firm note, mentioning that I might contact the media office.  Acroterion  (talk)  19:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was way over-the-top even before he got there. For instance, I'm not persuaded of the necessity of a list of every officer killed in the line of duty since 1928. --RrburkeekrubrR 19:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

mk5384
Sometime ago you offered your assistance if I should need any, and if you could be so kind, I would like to take you up on that. I went on my user page, and attempted to give myself the "novice editor" badge. However, I somehow wound up with "master editor". I did not do this on purpose, and if you could help me fix it I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. How's that? --RrburkeekrubrR 18:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. Could you tell me what I did wrong? I listed 12/29/09 with 600 edits. I was just puzzled when I saw the master editor star. (Although, I must admit that for 5 or 10 seconds I was tempted to leave it there.-Just kidding!)Mk5384 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks again!Mk5384 (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi... It was just a mistake in the way you entered the parameters: it should be year=2010 etc. Just have a look at the page source and you'll see how it works.  Cheers! --RrburkeekrubrR 19:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

good faith question about the Carradine "edit war"
Hi, In regard to the recent edits by BellsFromSeychelles you said that you did not think that a particular edit was vandalism. You don't think that having the lead sentence say that he was "best known for having a rope around his penis" is vandalism? I mean, it seems like it to me. Isn't just wrecking an article vandalism? --Ishtar456 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi... Thanks for you note. I think that the editor's actions were not particularly constructive, that the information s/he wished to add was not crucial to the article (on the other hand, Wikipedia is not censored), that his/her responses to you teetered on the brink of personal attacks and were at any rate uncivil, that s/he appeared to be edit warring and might have eventually merited a block for disruption if s/he had persisted.  I also suspect there may be some sockpuppetry afoot, though whether it involves this editor I don't know.


 * However, all this is separate from the issue of vandalism, which implies a bad-faith attempt to damage an article. Misguided edits, even when they damage an article, are not vandalism unless they are undertaken in bad faith.  I reviewed the editor's other contributions, and while I wouldn't support the inclusion of much of the material s/he added, I couldn't conclude that s/he was acting in bad faith. For example, when I cautioned the editor against adding controversial material not supported by a cited reliable source, s/he responded by restoring the material together with a cite from the Bangkok Post.  Vandals typically don't respond like that.


 * And once an editor does respond like that, what you have is a dispute over whether material ought to be included, and "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". This editor appears to believe that the manner of Carradine's death is noteworthy -- and that it's the principal thing for which he's known.  I'm ambivalent about the first point and think the second is flat wrong, but since a good deal of his recent notoriety had centred around the manner of his death, it's not a wholly unreasonable claim -- and it's certainly not vandalism, at least not on its face.  One editor added a Level 3 warning to the user's talk page for adding a link to a story in the Bangkok Post: citing a reputable source is never vandalism.


 * Vandalism is fairly easy to deal with; negotiating with editors you disagree with is hard. Dealing with intractable editors is even harder, but there are steps to follow. The first would be to take up the issue on the talk page, as you've done. Please see Dispute resolution for further steps that can be taken if this initial one fails. Please also consider taking a look at the essay Staying cool when the editing gets hot.


 * I'd appeal to you not to be discouraged and abandon the article. Resolving disputes requires patience: often -- though, sadly, not always -- combative editors will move on (unless they have some special investment in the topic), so it can pay simply to stay cool and be persistent.


 * Finally, you mentioned that you've asked for help in the past and not received it. Feel free to let me know what help you need and I'll help if I can. --RrburkeekrubrR 16:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed response, and links. I really needed that.  I wasn't even going to log in today, but I took a peek and saw your message. My intentions have been just to stay out of it and let other people handle it (since s/he/they/it seem to get such a kick out of going after me personally). I knew in my heart that they would, and they have. It really has been going on for almost a week. I have learned a lot of things the hard way, first and foremost:never use your real name while editing on Wikipedia.
 * As far as the things I asked help for goes, they have been resolved the hard way. There is nothing left now but the venting. I was asking for help using my new user name.  I was told to be patient, but I found out through trial and error that I had to sign out and sign back in with the new one.  I was upset that I was not told that when I started the process, nor when I requested help. But, it is resolved now.  My other issue was the uploading of files and how to have them accepted under a fair use rationale.  I do feel strongly that the photos that were deleted from the article could have been used under fair use, but I just could not figure out how to present them convincingly enough to be accepted and I find the process baffling.
 * After I read your message, I re-read the entire article and you know what-I did a fantastic job with it and I really think that it will, and should, be elevated to GA status, which is my goal.
 * Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Have a star


 * Thanks for that. And you're right: your improvements to the article have been considerable: all the more reason to stick with it! --RrburkeekrubrR 16:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is something about all this that has just come clear to me, and I feel like I have to share it. Just before this issue came up, I was personally attacked by another editor.  Since I had logged in using my real name, the attack felt particularly uncomfortable.  So I requested a new name (Shamhat456).  It took over 24 hours for the change to be made and by the time the administrator on the case went to make the change the name that I had requested had been taken.  I thought that it was more than a coincidence.  So I selected another name, the one I have now.  However, I just discovered, quite by accident, that the user who was the subject of this post to you was eventually blocked for being a sock puppet of none other than Shamhat456! As were 5 other users, most of whom had been tormenting me. So I guess, after all, it was in fact a personal attack.  I just had to share that and I have to say that I am impressed with the Wiki admins ability to identify sock puppets. --Ishtar456 (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What must have happened is that the user harassing you checked your contributions, saw that you had requested a name change and then swiped the username before it could be assigned to you.  I don't know if you had seen this:


 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Shamhat456/Archive


 * and this:


 * User_talk:Ckatz


 * Let me know if you suspect there are any more. --RrburkeekrubrR 04:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I thought was happening while it was happening, but I couldn't put it all together the way that you did. I don't know of any others, but it did all start with this Ip address: 92.237.212.178 on January 30 on the Carradine article. Thanks, your hard work is appreciated.--Ishtar456 (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Spoonerisms
I just dropped by to say "hi" because I noticed that you a username to WP:UAA for being an offensive Spoonerism. I similarly one of those over a year ago. It's also a bit of a coincidence that your signature has a somewhat similar theme to mine. Anyways, keep up the good work! M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone got him
That guy didn't really fit any MO's I'm familiar with, but that kind of sneaky garbage is closely monitored anyway. Thanks for letting me know and please keep me in the loop where these kinds of things are concerned. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

MAtt the knife
Hi, I got a warning from making an edit on a page regarding matt the knife attepting to edit some errors and update some information. May I ask why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevecyberbunny (talk • contribs) 22:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Contributions need to be anchored by references to reliable sources: unsourced claims  like "many people believe", unless they are accompanied by the citation of a source that substantiates that many people indeed hold the belief in question, are not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia and will be removed. --RrburkeekrubrR 22:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: what gives you the right
Who are you to decide what is valid or vandelism when certain pages are concerned. If aspects/commnets are true...its not vandelism...just because its not good press does not make it unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by H8endunn (talk • contribs) 22:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to air your grievances. Contributions must be written from a neutral point of view and supported by citations from reliable  sources. --RrburkeekrubrR 22:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

MAtt the knife
Ok well fair enough on the one comment on the fact that matt claims he he defrauded th mafia etc, I have no 'proof' but then again nor has the article itself.

as for my comment on his guinness world records not only did I include a link pointing out the new record holder, but I also work the Guinness World Records and am part of the team incestigatin his claims which under scrutiny and a plethora of complaints from other performers are now looking less than stellar.

We do not like performers making false claims, nor do we like performers continuing to claim in wiki or their website they have records when we have notified them they no longer hold such records.

I am not making spurious or snide remarks, if you wish me to leave Matts claims about how he has defrauded the mafia, casinos etc out of 'untold sums' and other such comments I will leave that up to you, but as for the records the current article is inaccurate and I wish to amend it without malice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevecyberbunny (talk • contribs) 22:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The shortest way to the point is to say that any claim must be supported by a citing a reliable source, or it is likely to be remove. The is doubly true in the case of biographies of living people.  You seem to be suggesting that the subject is editing the article himself: do you have evidence to substantiate that? --RrburkeekrubrR 23:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I know for a fact that he edit's it himself as he told me himself, saying 'keep an eye on my Wiki page, I update it myself so it always has the latest info' Not to mention all the info about being a conman etc is entirely derived from his own mouth without any supporting evidence.

However as for accurate sourcaes from other bodies I can provide two. Matt claims in his wiki page to have 12 world records including two that have been broken and which in my original i gave proof thereof from our site http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/arts_and_media/stunts_and_special_effects/fastest_underwater_handcuff_escape.aspx http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/arts_and_media/stunts_and_special_effects/fastest_underwater_handcuff_escape.aspx

AS for the rest of his claims, i can firmly state as a governing member of GWR we are investing ALL of matts records as further information has come to light at it does seem he has faked most, if not all, of his records.

Long story short, we know this entire wiki page is edited by matt and most of it is his own promo story and that those two records are already beaten and the rest of his will be officially removed within weeks. We're just trying to limit the damage he is doing. If you could at the very -least- allow me to mention that the records he claims to have are no longer his that would be something... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevecyberbunny (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Question...
Sorry to bother you but I saw that you had sent a warning to 'Stevecyberbunny' for vandalism of the matt the knife page. I was one of the ones that undid some of his earlier vandalism but since then he's made 7 more edits that would constitute the same behavior. I want to send him a warning myself but since I'm relatively new to Wikipedia editing I don't know how and was therefore wondering if you could fill me in. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.228.201 (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help, but unfortunately I won't have time to deal with this in any detail for about 10 days. I agree that Stevecyberbunny's edits are inappropriate, but I don't agree that they're vandalism: edits are only considered vandalism if an editor is attempting to harm the article.  In this instance, I think the editor believes he his correcting inaccuracies.  In my opinion, he is adding material not supported by reliable sources.  While this is inappropriate, it's technically different from vandalism.  For example, if no reliable, published source explicitly says Matt the Knife is, as he put it in an earlier edit, "facing scrutiny," or that his records have been challenged, then the article shouldn't say those things either.


 * First I have to ask you if you have any connection to the subject in the article, because that will limit the ways in which can mitigate the problem. If you are affiliated with Matt the Knife in any way, it is generally considered inappropriate for you to be editing the article -- with some important exceptions I'll come to in a moment.  Please have a look at  Conflict of interest to see if it applies to you.


 * If it does apply to you, then you are entitled to revert vandalism -- but please make sure you've thoroughly read the definition of vandalism. You are also entitled to remove anything defamatory or any negative unsourced or poorly-sourced information (please see Biographies of living persons.  If the editor persists in restoring material you consider inappropriate, please raise the matter at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.  If you post to this notice board, make sure to declare your conflict of interest.


 * If  Conflict of interest does not apply to you, you are free to rewrite the article as you please, provided any material you add or change is anchored by inline citations from reliable sources. Please see  Verifiability for more information.  If you end up in a conflict with another editor over the article, try to find common ground by starting a discussion on the article's talk page.  If you are unable to resolve your conflict this way, please see Dispute resolution.


 * Feel free to keep me informed, but I won't be able to respond until after March 23. --RrburkeekrubrR 19:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

First off, thanks for taking the time to respond. I wasn't even expecting an answer until after you got back from your holiday. Anyway, on to the edits.

As far as my connection, I suppose to be fair that my view IS somewhat slanted. I don't know the guy personally or anything and haven't even met him but I've seen him perform live on 3 different occasions and would consider myself to be a somewhat of a fan... not a fanatic or anything but I like what he does is all. I looked over the page on conflict of interest and I'm not sure if it's applicable to me. While me editing it wouldn't "advance any outside interests" I suppose that I'm also not 100% neutral either because I consider myself to be a fan of his work. So I'm left a bit unsure on this. My guess is that my editing would be considered acceptable but if I'm wrong then I wouldn't want to continue with any revisions on the page.

Stevecyberbunny's edits seem to be broken down in to 2 categories. The first one is altering wording to form a negative slant. This seems to be unnecessary but also doesn't seem to be inherently against Wikipedia guidelines. But the second area of edits is less gray, which is the removal of large, well cited sections. Today alone he has completely removed 2 entire sections and has almost entirely removed another 3 or 4. Not to mention deleting several sources/citations in the process. This in turn seem to alter the article to Stevecyberbunny's personal and undocumented opinions.

But in spite of all that, I can see what you're saying about them not technically being vandalism. If they're not considered wrongful in Wikipedia's eyes then I'm hesitate to revert them, especially when I take in to account that I'm new at editing and don't want to get in to any trouble altering other user's stuff. Not to mention I'm hesitant to get in to some silly cyber argument with a stranger over an entertainer that I'm merely fond of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.228.201 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You asked to be kept informed, so here it goes. I waited about a week to see what would happen on the page and to think over what you'd written me. During the next week 'Stevecyberbunny' made 17 edits to the page which were mostly just the same 5 edits over and over again since other people kept reverting them back to what they originally were. I thought it over and decided to attempt a more neutral stance than what 'Stevecyberbunny' or the other 4 or 5 people editing were doing. 'Stevecyberbunny' wanted it to sound negative which isn't what Wikipedia is about, BUT by he's not completely wrong either - parts of it sounded almost TOO positive and by keeping it THAT way is really just as bad since the article should at least attempt to sound unbiased.

So for a couple of 'Stevecyberbunny' changes I left them precisely the way that he's made them since they take a more neutral stance than what had been there. And for the ones that he took a negative stance, instead of changing them back to a positive like had been done before, I changed them to a neutral stance that focused on the referenced sources instead of any personal opinions.

Hopefully this will satisfy both sides and make for a stronger article overall! :) I know that you're still away and I'm sure that you'll be busy when you get back but I'd love for you to take a look at the edits and let me know your thoughts whenever you get a chance. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.228.201 (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mortis 207
The above user is a sock of user:Lila Cheney 336. I've got an open SPI to look for more socks. -- Flyguy649 talk 00:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye out. I had a brief look at the archive: any other identifying tics besides the corporate-URL swapping? --RrburkeekrubrR 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They are always throw-aways. They hit 1 or 2 (very occasionally 3) corporate articles then move to the next account. Several accounts get used in a short time then he/she goes away for several days. The usernames appear to be bot generated. The targets have remained the same, but the vandalism changes. The first time it was swapping two letters in the names of the corporation (e.g. Panasonic --> Panasonci). Another it was swapping the URLs of two corps. It's possible the edits are done with a bot, too. I have some info at User:Flyguy649/Socks, but I haven't updated it in a while. I have all the targets watchlisted. -- Flyguy649 talk 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

why do u keep delete my page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcorp01 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. --RrburkeekrubrR 00:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not advertise the company, i am only talking about a bio of him, Is a bio not allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcorp01 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your username is Kcorp, but you have no connection to Kauffman Home AV Integration, the subject of the article you created? Are you sure that's the story you want to stick to? Anyway, there's no evidence the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria and the article lacks inline citations from reliable sources. --RrburkeekrubrR 00:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You do not know who I am and yes I am connected to Kauffman Home AV Integration. I was trying to make a bio page of him. Is that not allowed. Before you say something BOLD, check your facts! I ask again, Is a bio page not allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcorp01 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A biography page is likely to be deleted if the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographical articles. It also must be composed using reliable secondary sources.  If you are affiliated with the subject, it is not appropriate for you to create and edit such an article, in accordance with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. --RrburkeekrubrR 01:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

re: Javier Hernández (footballer)

 * Cheers. I'll be watching the article in the meantime. --Tocino 16:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point about sneaky vandalism. I noticed someone changed the number of goals scored from 26 to 28, but I think you changed it back to the correct number of 26. --Tocino 16:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... actually the pre-vandalism page shows that he scored 28 goals. --Tocino 16:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

David Leslie Hawksworth
Hi, Rrburke! Just to be sure - is everything ok with my wikilinking? --Adept Ukraine (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Acharius Medal notable enough? (Talk:David Leslie Hawksworth) --Adept Ukraine (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Flapper
Hi. I just tried to return the above page to a version you previously rescued, as an intervening unidentified contributor had made it incoherent. But I found some problems undoing revisions. I think I've restored it correctly, but I'd be grateful if you could check I haven't removed anything which ought to have been left there. RLamb (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)