User talk:Whitstable
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please leave talk here.
Honestly, I don't think it merits more than a sentence, considering that much more well-known pools also have no more than a sentence. It is the least notable of the three pools mentioned, and if it were up to me alone it isn't notable enough to be included at all were it not for the link to the newspaper article. Quatloo 01:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the fact that there is a selection at all does in fact make it a Dead Pool. Quatloo 01:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Any information on it and the other dead pools (and many, many others not mentioned) should be balanced with respect to each other. When 50% of the article is devoted to the relatively insignificant Death List, this is a distinct misbalance. Also the quality and type of information conveyed in the description must also be considered. The information there was unimportant and relatively inane. I am not sure any of the specific Dead Pools deserve more than a passing reference, and that is what they have now. Quatloo 01:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
GG - I agree with your message, thank you. I have edited the current Death List entry only insofar as I've improved the syntax and grammar; it really was very poorly written. I did not enter any new information, nor did I extend the entry. --In eternum+ 00:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
GG - Couldn't help but notice that Qualtoo has deleted the most recent Dead Pool link (that of Weatherman 90) from the Dead Pool entry, stating that the link does not belong. This strikes me as absurd, as it is a link to a Dead Pool! As a Recent Changes Patroller, is there anything you can do about Qualtoo's incorrect edits? I believe Qualtoo is now adding and removing things from the Dead Pool site simply to do it, without actually thinking first. --In eternum+ 22:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Death List
I'm confused... didn't you create the Death List article? If so, why did you list it for speedy with the tag Is this not just free advertisment for a web site??? - or am I reading this all wrong? - Glen T C 13:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] VandalProof
You were turned down because you only have a total of 310 edits at this time; once you reach 500, you can reapply. Thanks! Master of Puppets That's hot. 02:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, and it isn't anything personal; just there are precautions we need to take before giving out the tool (its pretty powerful). Cheers, Master of Puppets That's hot. 02:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- You beat me here Master of Puppets, I was busy helping a user out who was having technical difficulties with VandalProof. Incidentally the above is not completely correct, you need 250 article edits (you have 149), not 500 total edits. Happy editing Prodego talk 02:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, just noticed that on the requirements page. Thanks for correcting me, though! Master of Puppets That's hot. 02:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Aspley, Nottingham
I wish I could do anything to prevent vandals myself, but I'm not an admin! If a vandal persists, try reporting the IP/username at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Stephenb (Talk) 08:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Villa Players Statement
It's on the BBC Sport website. That's good enough for me. I'll reinstate it if you don't mind. Regards Martyn Smith 12:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Reply left on your talk page. Regards. Gretnagod 12:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah ok, we've got the Birmingham Evening Mail asserting that it wasn't the group thing that the BBC says it is. I'm just as likely to believe the Mail as the Beeb, so ok, it's not quite yet been established as the absolute truth I thought it was at first. I'll leave it for now, cheers Martyn Smith 14:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please consider fighting for OBOT
Just to say im glad you though the OBOT page was funny, but also it is a serious game. please help keep it alive on wikipedia, the greatest website on earth. User: J_man2211 16:23 30 November
[edit] Your vandalproof application
Sorry, you don't yet have the minimum 250 edits in the mainspace. Just make a few more and you'll probably reach it by tonight. When you have around 250 reapply. Sorry for the inconvenience --frothT C 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Onions
I would appreciate it if you could encourage your fellow admins to not delete the onions page. thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jenna741 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Lee Molyneux (footballer)
I'm taking the speedy tag off that article. I do see what you mean on the talk page about many players who are now 23 once were with Premier League clubs, but that seems to me to be enough assertion of notability to save it from the simplistic criteria of speedy deletion as non-notable. Probably putting it up for AfD would be the best way to go; that would probably attract interest from the football Wikiproject to get some clearer policy on what is, and isn't, a notable footballer. Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's an interesting one. Perhaps the criterion should be "played for a Premiership (or whatever) team with some degree of notability - scored a goal, bit the ref, saved against Drogba, (again, whatever) - before disappearing into obscurity". After all, playing ten minutes as a sub then ending up next season at Hendon Town is sort of an assertion of not being notable, in a way. I know what I'm talking about as a Newcastle United supporter - Roeder is just about putting on the bench the bloke who sells pies at half time (although come to think about it that would be notable :-) ). Regards, Tonywalton | Talk 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Gretnagod! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. frothT C 03:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Aston Villa Article
Hi Gretnagod, I think you are right about the whole 'notable' - 'greatest' player debate - but I think to not try to draw up a list would be impossible, all articles have to discriminate because they are supposedly (hopefully) written by someone with an informed knowledge. Obviously with footballers there is a wide scope for opinion!
In terms of what is happening at the moment with the suggested changes to the subheadings, the date ranges are not informed, they do not fit into any era of the club's history. Surely every club must have it's own history, and therefore it's own subheadings in telling that story. I take the point that some of them could be less emotive, but to do away with them altogether seems abit rash. What are your thoughts?
Villafanuk 20:36 22 March 2007
[edit] WikiProject Kent Collaboration Results
Hello Whitstable, following our collaboration to tag Kent-related articles, we have ear marked 931 articles as being Kent related, however, as of the 26th March, 137 articles are still to be assessed.
- Could you please look at any, some or even one of the 137 unassessed articles and change the {{WP:Kent|class=}} template, on the talk page, to a "class=Stub/Start or B category".
- Please try to grade according to the guidelines to enable us to prioritise future work.
| Kent articles |
Importance | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | ||
| Quality | |||||||
 FA |
1 | 1 | |||||
| A | 1 | 1 | |||||
 GA |
1 | 1 | |||||
| B | 3 | 4 | 6 | 13 | |||
| Start | 1 | 12 | 49 | 137 | 2 | 201 | |
| Stub | 5 | 17 | 552 | 3 | 577 | ||
| Assessed | 1 | 20 | 73 | 695 | 5 | 794 | |
| Unassessed | 0 | 2 | 5 | 130 | 0 | 137 | |
| Total | 1 | 22 | 78 | 825 | 5 | 931 | |
- Olive Oil -ŢάĽɮ - 01:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why are you deleting Montagu Square?
This is annoying, I'm gradually adding info to the article. Yesterday you wrote something on my Talk page then removed that comment. Today I notice the Montagu Square article has gone. I suppose you must have deleted it, which was confusing. Why is it necessary to delete such an article so quickly? Can you not wait at least 24 hours to see if it gets acceptable? -- Hotlorp 01:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for signing my autograph book! Bmg916Speak to MeLeave Your Mark 13:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] We were
No problem for me, just decided to undo yours cause we had choicen different ways to do it. Wonder how long the admins will use to get rid of that one by the way;-) (hopefully this don't count as pointless talking!) :-) Greswik 18:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your AIV report
Removing speedy deletion tags isn't, in general, considered vandalism. Any editor other than the creator of an article may remove a speedy tag if they don't think it applies, and it's not supposed to be readded. -Amarkov moo! 18:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shanel blanco
You recently tagged this article for speedy deletion under criterion A7 - no assertion of notability. I've removed the speedy because there is a claim of notability. If you still think the article should be deleted - and you have a strong case - please consider WP:AfD. Thanks! Natalie 19:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- That makes way more sense - thanks for letting me now. I've deleted it again and will WP:SALT it, since it's been created 4 times in 48 hours or so. Natalie 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MySpace Secret Shows
It was brought bck because i put a link tht confirmed its notability which was the reason it was going to be deleted in the first place. It was wrong to delete and i am informing administrators to bring it back.Martini833 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
