User talk:Vansockslayer

Page curation
Hi. I see you have not been here very long. Can I suggest that if you wish to do Page Curation, you should familiarize yourself with the speedy deletion criteria at WP:CSD. I suggest this because a page you nominated as a BLP PROD, Richard Longwidth, was, in fact, a blatant speedy deletion candidate under CSD:A7 as it made no claim to importance whatsoever. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In fact,I think that BLP PROD is more target specific?--Gmaildamn (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP PROD is intended for articles that would otherwise be acceptable if they had references added, and allows people the 7 days to find sources and cite them. But it's obvious that no amount of sourcing would make this article good enough to keep, as the subject is clearly not notable and clearly fails to even clear the CSD:A7 speedy deletion hurdle. 82.35.107.31 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

And just so I don't sound too negative, I think you got Yacht sentinel and Mansooralikalady just right :-) 82.35.107.31 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Hi Gmaildamn. Thanks for helping to review new articles. I wanted to let you know that you shold not have nominated Hail The Sun for deletion under WP:CSD which only applies an article about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Musical recording articles can be nominated for speedy deletion under WP:CSD, but only if there is no Wikipedia article about the subject. - MrX 15:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Paul Easter
For reference, the articles being created about this non-notable filmmaker are all just a director trying to promote himself, in increasingly strange ways. They're recreations of an article that was deleted through AfD, so can be speedied as db-g4, citing Articles_for_deletion/Paul_T_T_Easter. (See Sockpuppet_investigations/SEFPRODUCTIONS for some context; he's spamming a lot of articles today.) --McGeddon (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I know this.--User:Gmaildamn (User talk:Gmaildamn) 15:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay. Well, it's worth using - if you just tag it as db-copyvio, a well-meaning editor might step in, rewrite the article and remove the template since it's no longer a copyvio. And db-banned can take longer to be processed, because the admin has to check and decide whether it's the banned user or not; if it's a simple recreation of an AfD'd article, that's quicker and easier to check.
 * Thanks for helping to keep an eye on things. --McGeddon (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

That was fast!
Warning removed.

Was it a mistake? Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Who are you?--User:Gmaildamn (User talk:Gmaildamn) 15:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm the editor who created the sockpuppet report involving Stadiumhopper, and who placed the warning on his Talk page, which you removed. JohnInDC (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed it because of your username..Yeah I bad-faithed you.User:Gmaildamn (User talk:Gmaildamn) 15:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Huh. Well - maybe take a moment in the future to look a bit harder.  Editor contribution and Talk pages are helpful.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy tagging
Thanks for patrolling new pages, a vital and under-appreciated task, but please don't tag newly created articles with WP:CSD or WP:CSD too soon after creation. While things like copyright violations and attack pages need to be tagged at once, new contributors often put in a word or two and then click "Save page" to see how it looks: it is discouraging and BITEy if a speedy-deletion template pops up at once. For incomplete articles like Joan Bernadotte just now (which you tagged only a minute after its creation), what you should do is, make a note of the title and wait at least 10 - 15 minutes before tagging. See uw-hasty. There is general advice about new page patrolling at WP:NPP, and about speedy tagging at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

CSD criteria
Hi Gmaildamn, thanks for helping out with new page patrolling. Please make sure you review the speedy deletion criteria before tagging articles. You tagged Nha San Collective with G2 and A10, however A10 is only for articles not for any other namespace. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Your sig
Hi there.

just letting you know that your sig seems to be malformed - the link to your user talk and user page in fact are pointing to a sandbox pages which don't exist. It could make it hard for people to send you messages, and for you to be aware that people are doing so. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that the problem is still there. Please do correct the problem, as otherwise it may be difficult for editors to find their way to your talk page, especially for new editors who may not know their way around very well. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem.-User:Gmaildamn (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Hello Gmaildamn. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3),or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. -- Non-Dropframe   talk   10:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to wait for 10 min,but when I saw you reported him,I decided to tag a3 for it.User:Gmaildamn (User talk:Gmaildamn) 10:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing a talk page post
I assume that this edit must have been a mistake, as you removed what seems to me to be a perfectly good-faith talk page post by another editor. I suggest being very careful in such cases. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Good Faith Edit Reversion
Hi, I just wanted to check in and see if you could explain why this talk page edit was reverted. I'm relatively new to this community, and I want to make sure I know how to appropriately post talk information. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giffyguy (talk • contribs) 09:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It is because you don't need reference in the talk page, you could add it again because the other content is constructive.Vansockslayer (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I'll replace the references with clean hyperlinks, and repost. Giffyguy (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've immediately responded to this utterly silly proposition Talk:Plasma cosmology, whose mechanism seems to only seek self-promotion, which is against Wiki policies. These kind of people are hell-bent to promote their wacky ideas at every opportunity, and investigation shows that the claims made here are quite false. Regards. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

funny
the thing you don't know is nothingb for you that funny cuz you can't respect some ones hard work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.26.254 (talk • contribs)

Oh, another dumb newbie,the reason for I didn't remove your last edit is you didn't remove the "prod" notice from the article.--Vansockslayer (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

i'm not dumb but your ....... samrt wanna to say — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnewlol (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 November 2015 (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) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

C.g.hundi
Sorry, but A7 doesn't apply to villages as they are geographical locations. A7 is limited to people, groups of people (like companies, regiments, underwater embroidery clubs and so on, but NOT educational establishments), named animals (but not species of animals), web content (such as YouTube rubbish, websites and multi-user games, but not downloadable software or games you play alone on your own machine), and organised events (like local flower shows, the majority of weddings and funerals, and and the Crunky Cruds rock band playing at the Red Seahorse pub in Little Twittering in the Bushes). Anything other than this (books, films, folding shovels, clockwork penguins, educational institutions, knitted woollen car covers and so on) have to go to WP:PROD or WP:AFD. OK? It can be tricky. St Aethelburger's Church is probably not in, as it is likely to be an old building, but The Church of the Dancing Lemming would be as it is a group of people (or more likely a hoax...). If the architecture is given more prominence, it's not A7. If the congregation and the vicars are the main focus, it's probably OK for A7. Please ask difficult questions - A7 is rather akin to mediaeval theology (or railway timetables...). Peridon (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN3
I don't know what your problem is, but stop removing my report from WP:AN3 -- unless you want to end up at WP:ANI. 66.87.115.115 (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this block doesn't affect you [],Right?Vansockslayer (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess not. That still doesn't explain your repeated deletion of my legitimate 3RR complaint. 66.87.115.212 (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually,I will look at the reporter's talk page history[] before peforming a rollback action.Vansockslayer (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism by a most likely sockpuppet on the Football Records in Spain page and Copa Eva Duarte page
Hello Sir,

Kindly take a look at the disruptive editing of the user "2001:620:d:4ad2::323" who is removing sourced material after a consensus has been reached. Also take a look at his user history on Wikipedia where I have found him removing sourced material at will for no apparent reason.

The "dispute" is ongoing on this Wikipedia page below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Football_records_in_Spain&action=history

2 primary sources (1 from the RFEF even) have been included and they have been that for well over 1 year yet he suddenly decided on his own to remove the sourced material.

Here for instance he has removed correct sourced material for no apparent reason other than vandalism that I had to correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derbi_barcelon%C3%AD&action=history

Here is his user history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:620:D:4AD2:0:0:0:323

He is most likely a Nepali sockpuppet moreover. It obvious that he is a very biased RM fan hellbent on disrupting factual data/information about FCB if it does not suit him.

He is accusing me of being "biased" while all I do is sticking to facts.

Earlier today an editor on the FC Barcelona page included the Copa Latina trophy while I removed it due to a consensus having been reached of not including that trophy on any club page of a club who previously won the Copa Latina. Yet that individual is accusing me of "bias" when there is none.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Barcelona

Where can I contact a moderator to discuss this issue?

Thanks in advance.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The article's talk page or here--Vansockslayer (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad and messianic prophecies
Hi, it was not a mistake, you were correct the first time - its a persistent re-poster of a POV fork of Muhammad in the Bible - you reverted another copy yesterday. They normally jump IPs but we've got protection on multiple existing ones, so I guess they have another acount to try to get around the blocks. They just started again a few months off, stated again with lots of abusive messages as well. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit war
Please examine the note I left on the page laying out the details of this so-called edit war and tell me what you think. I might add, with emphasis, that the user and I are currently attempting to work this out in a constructive manner and therefore I don't believe there is a need to examine the issue further. Italia2006 (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)