User talk:Delusion23/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Delusion23, for the period July 2012 to December 2012. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Hello,

I see that you have PRODDED several football teams with the concern "Team has not played at level 10 or played in the FA Cup or FA Vase." I have not objected because the teams have failed the general notability requirements in any case. If you are referring to a specific policy then in future, can you include a link (I suspect that it is WP:FOOTY). That would be more helpful than copying the section.

Thankyou

Op47 (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Come on... You have heard how they talk... ;)

Hahaha... Been up 14 hours straight. Ignore the obvious miss of Liverpool/Wales/England bla...

User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 01:57, 02 July 2012 (GMT)

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have declined your CSD on Andrew Darbyshire - A7 doesn't apply here because the article makes plausible claims to notability. That said, the article is clearly a vanity page and an autobiography, please feel free to examine the claims and references, explore other deletion criteria, or to consider any alternative methods of deletion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I did check the one claim to notability: that the guy had been honoured for the 2012 Australia Day Honours, along with the thousand other people that were honoured that day that don't have articles. I assumed this meant the award was not notable. Thus I went for a speedy. And seeing as it had massive COI problems, and that it had previously been deleted using the same CSD criteria... Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

As you may be aware, a decision, presumably by an administrator, has been made to redirect my nine articles which you proposed for deletion to the CML page, rather than to delete them, which as you can imagine I'm pleased about. Whilst the majority had wanted to shred my articles, some did suggest this redirection. Therefore, it's still possible to access my efforts whilst maintaining the current status-quo concerning club notability and if any of these nine clubs become 'notable' or a future decision is taken to consider all CML teams 'notable' then there's a starter article for those nine clubs already available, albeit hidden from view. I think it's a reasonable compromise and therefore it would now be rather immature of me to opt for the Courtesy Vanishing. I hope you can understand why I was upset and why I felt it was perfectly justified to state this during the discussion although I can see why you "lost patience" with me due to me finding it necessary to state this on several occasions. I think I shall take some time out and decide whether to make any further contributions in the future.{Rillington (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)}

I appreciate your reply and after further thought I have decided to put this experience behind me because, as I'm glad you agree, a good compromise decision was taken by the admins. Therefore, rather than throwing the toys out of the pram, my attitude is to learn from it and move on and continue to edit, my first being a major update to Thackley F.C.'s page as I'd previously noticed that that page had been somewhat lacking when compared to the other teams in the NCEL. I think that the way to avoid this happening again is to only create pages that are in red rather than black, such as the ones you referred to on the deletion topic and the teams in red on rugby league's National Conference League page. This should ensure that any future new articles of mine will not be deleted.{Rillington (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)}

Per the policies on the usage of non-free images on Wikipedia, non-free images are not allowed on pages outside of the article namespace, including userpages. An image on your user page is copyrighted and unlicensed, so I had to remove it. I'm sorry if you are upset by my editing your page without your permission, but this is a rule where Wikipedia allows no exceptions. I want to make sure you know that this isn't personal. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or to seek another editor's opinion at the WP:MCQ discussion board. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The article Rodolphe Alexandre has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Sephiroth87 (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Apart from the points I've noted at the autopatrol request desk, please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Wifione ^Message 09:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why (the fact that the article isn't up to date is no reason to delete it..) ?

Article has been created just to be there, so I can open pages for all teams in the world, write a score on that page and leave it. this is wikipedia policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.235.203 (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hiya

Can you point out where you found the Horley Town logo on the HTFC Website, cos as far as I can see that version does not exist there? Thanks Head-it-behind (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The source is still saying www.horleytown.info. This is actually an incorrect alias for the main club website www.horleytownFC.info. Can you please remove the incorrect address before someone starts using it. Thks Head-it-behind (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the proper club logo is here Head-it-behind (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, there is a discussion going on, about the match reports for the olympic football tournament. You are welcome to join here. Kante4 (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the BLP prod you placed on Milica Lukic. The article was created before March 2010, so is excepted from the rule. If you feel the article doesn't meet notability guideline feel free to place a traditional prod on it or send it to AfD. J04n(talk page) 12:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

what are you doing here? see this: http://www.london2012.com/medals/medal-count/index.html. --YOSHImitsu 18:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you created a template for the list. I'm not sure what the point of this is. For starters, no other medal table page does it. Besides, the full list is only used on the one page anyway, so the template just makes things more complicated. I've started a discussion on the talk page if you would like to state your opinion there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

But that's not much of an advantage. It's only two pages. And once the Olympics ends, the template will have no use whatsoever. I think it's easier just to keep things the way they are, it's the same method that every other medal table uses. I think you should get a consensus before re-adding it. So far myself and one other have reverted your implementation of it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I know and understand the policy, thanks. However, there are articles where people are put down as being knighted or enobled before they actually were and it makes it easier to find these if there are no redirected links. Quentin X (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, did that at work and wasn't paying attention. Don't tell anyone.... Quentin X (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A user (say User-1) cited meru shikhara lai in a Wikipedia talk page on 3 August 2012.

Same day I asked User-1 to write entire hymn in his native language script as because I found lai can have at least 3 different words in his native language. In addition, I asked User-1 to write 2 other words both in her/his native script as well as Devanagari script.

A 2nd user (say User-2) jumped over and started responding for User-1. The User-2 indicated that s(he) is not disingenuous - s(he) as well as User-1 would not respond.

It is 10-day past since I asked for this information.

Any feedback/suggestion so that I get the information from User-1 and or User-2?

Appreciate it very much, thanks!

Kurmaa (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you follow what was said by Jdcollins13. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am following the same as 1st step, appreciate it very much. -Kurmaa (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of The Afterman: Ascension at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Maile66 (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

On 24 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Afterman: Ascension, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the deluxe version of Coheed and Cambria's album, The Afterman: Ascension, will give a song-by-song experience using a hardcover coffee-table book? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Afterman: Ascension. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

They have a new website, with what looks like a new badge. Unfortunately it isn't whole, but you might be able to do something with it, or figure something out! [1] Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, only one to go! We'll get there, even if I have to trek over to Clapton and tear the London Bari badge off someone's shirt ;) Yep, I'm cracking on with the Western League seasons - I'm looking forward to doing the 1960s and early 70s when they only had one division! Also quite a few of the clubs had no article, and when I checked them out, almost all of them had played in the FA Cup, so they were notable. So I've been creating a few of those as I go along. Might be tricky to get badges for some of those though, like Bristol Aeroplane Company F.C. and Hoffman Athletic! Good work with the Southern and Isthmian leagues too, real progress there :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Three tables of 22 is quite a bit of work! And yes, it may well have been that these old clubs didn't have badges as such. Old programmes are probably the only way to get them now anyway, but then not all clubs made programmes! It's surprising just how many of these old clubs entered the FA Cup and have now been forgotten. I think, certainly in the case of the Western League, the standard back then was quite a bit higher than it is now. Some WFL clubs were even professional in the 1950s. You're right about Guildford & Dorking, I think - probably best to cover that in the individual Dorking / Guildford articles and make the merged team a dab page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I removed two fictional actors from the Cast; hope I did it the right way; Greetings from Bavaria; Stefan --84.130.205.15 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC) it was obviously vandalism from an IP 180. ... (the movie!!)

Many thanks for your kind posting to my talk page and for your invitation for me to join the non league task force and I shall join. As you've probably spotted I am trying to de-stub as many team articles as possible and hopefully this can be achieved before the end of the year.

I remember way back during the CML articles deletion discussion that you were happy for me to consult you on new articles to ensure they would not end up getting deleted. I was thinking of writing an article about the vidiprinter. It would be divided into three parts - the first being when it's shown on TV, the second being a television history and the final part is a list (with the codes that Press Association uses for the various competitions) of the competitions that it covers and what information is provided for these various league and cup competitons. Do you think such an article would be acceptable to wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rillington (talk • contribs) 19:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply and I am pleased that you enjoyed reading my vidiprinter article. I intend to polish it somewhat before publishing it but the main facts are there (apart from the codes used for the new Premier Development Youth Leagues) and I am happy with the structure. When you say "inline citations for verification" do you mean references? because if so I'm struggling to locate any references to vidiprinter history on the internet although as you will have seen I am including the links to the four versions of the vidiprinter currently available on the internet. As you say, there are plenty of wikipedia articles which refer to the vidiprinter so I think it will make a good article given that the vidiprinter is an integral part of Final Score and Soccer Saturday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rillington (talk • contribs) 15:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've written the history section mainly from memory although there are some references to Final Score and Soccer Saturday history on their wikipedia pages. Given that the article is basically ready for submission I will try to find other references on the internet before submitting it. (Rillington (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC))

At this moment I can really only reference the history section with other wikipedia articles as I said above but I'd be very surprised if there weren't some references to the vidiprinter online somewhere. It would be shame if I wasn't able to publish the article based purely on this one reason.(Rillington (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC))

As you can see, for the reasons we've talked about I haven't published the article as yet so to avoid the WP:OR issue and I shall see if I can find some references via Final Score as a search on the word 'vidiprinter' doesn't seem to produce anything of relevance for finding references needed apart from being able to add more external links to more online versions of the vidiprinter. I hope I can find something because I think it's a good article.(Rillington (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

I've now dug up a few references and hopefully these should be sufficient to at least be acceptable for the article to be published. After all, more references can be found in the future.(Rillington (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

• Just a quick note to let you know that I have now published the vidiprinter article now that I have been able to locate a few references.(Rillington (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC))

• • Good idea to create "current use by broadcasters" paragraph.(Rillington (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC))

That's alright, work through it in your own time and renominate and I'll take another look. Theres no rush on it. Miyagawa (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Thank you so much for that page, I will try to follow it and hopefully with some luck it shall work. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not remove an RM notice I remove a {{movenotice}} template.

{{movenotice}} is depreciated and you do not need to add it to multi-move articles because the bot does it automatically see for example see talk:List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners#Move discussion in progress

See Wikipedia talk:Article titles#The role of template:movenotice in title changes. I have just been through the category produced by {{movenotice}} the evidence is that the notice does not bring more people into the debate. And as you will read in the above link, interested editors will either have the page on their watch list, or they will come across the move via the RM list or some other Wikipedia advert such as on the talk page of a project eg Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#List of finals or winners?. Few if any editors are likely to arrive on the page during a week of the RM takes place, see the tag and join in the debate.

The opinions of new users and IP addresses are not considered in move requests (to discourage sockpuppetry), and as controversial move requests are often quite hostile, it is not a suitable portal for newcomers. -- PBS (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

i noticed you edited a Mixed Martial Arts page in August, but you haven't listed yourself as a Participant on the Wikiproject for Mixed Martial Arts pages. I've decided to try to drum up interest to get more people involved!

Kevlar (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Haha thanks! That was one of the more bonkers vandals I've seen lately. Normally there's at least some kind of reason for vandalising, but this? Some people must be very bored ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm just being very silly about editing Wikipedia tonight. Please feel free to be responsible and delete everything I've done. I usually make very useful and insightful edits, and if I were in my right mind, I'd be doing exactly what you're doing. Peace out. --Teemu Leisti (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Coherent, but a hoax. Check the refs. 'Nonsense' is for things like 'ytrxyttcyyviu' or 'fttrxtt' so long as you're sure they're not compliments in Upper Slobodian. Or for things like 'fix the aardvark generously salient sideways the hippopotamus ant vertiginous Wrexham'. Very limited criterion. I don't see many that it applies to. Hoaxes, though... Peridon (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw he'd done that. He put in a lot of work once I showed him how to do it, and it's good that all the Steps 9-10 leagues seem to be covered. I hope he can keep it up! But I think you're right about the Kent League article, it should probably be split because they are separate leagues. Either that or rename the article to fit the fact that it covers two leagues, but that might be problematic. The Midland leagues seem to be three separate leagues (?) Not sure what we can do with that. I'm reluctant to ask at the WikiProject because I can hear people saying "Why do these articles exist?" already. Maybe ask Catgamer what he thinks? But basically I think you're right and they should be split. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Good work with the Kent Leagues. As you say, the Midlands ones could be a problem. I agree that if we split that article, someone is going to add tables (and all the templates) down to Step 12, then someone else is going to come along and ask what on earth is going on. Renaming it seems like the best bet - how about something like 2012–13 Midlands football leagues (Step 9–10)? Bit complicated? It would at least stop people adding lower tables. Regarding the Spartan South Midlands, I'm tempted to leave it and hope nobody adds Division Two (Step 11). If someone does, we can remove it again as non-notable. Catgamer probably won't add it, or he would have done so already. With the best will in the world, I doubt thousands of people are looking at it, so maybe nobody will add it. I'm sure some editors would like to get rid of all the Step 9-10 leagues; I recall someone moaning about the Western League one a while ago. But I figure that if the League itself is notable, then surely the seasons are notable, providing they're kept up to date. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh Lord.. that's another Step 10 league, isn't it? So if someone did want to cover it, it could go in this renamed Midlands league article. I'm also tempted not to bother, for now at least. It should be pretty straightforward to add it if we (or Catgamer) want to. I'm happy to let you handle the renaming etc, and I'll obviously back you up if anyone asks what you're doing. I wonder if anyone will ever go back and do the past seasons for these articles? :p Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good so far, and I see Catgamer is editing away happily and doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Yeah, some of those leagues don't have much history, but the Western League is ancient, and at one time featured Spurs, Chelsea, Millwall etc, so some extra notability there. The Northern league is old too, no? Bretonbanquet (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd love to have done the Western League by Christmas, but maybe February/March is more realistic. Maybe if I'm feeling really masochistic, I'll start the Northern League after that... ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I did notice that!! Haha, typical. I've seen stuff I've written on here about musicians and bands used in all kinds of places. When Alex Chilton died, I cobbled together a few lines on his article about the circumstances of his death, and it was swiftly used verbatim on his website! Not to mention people flogging records on eBay copying my articles word for word. That's what we get for being brilliant, I guess ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey! The links you added in the article don't exist. Thanks for the restoration of deleted part! Its on the main page so please don't tag for now, I am removing the red links. Cheers Samar ^Talk 19:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed them for the time its on main page. But I guess you are right.

Hey Delusion23. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I get the feeling that I'm going to have another massive swathe of my efforts deleted - once again - and I saw that you are for this mass merger, which would see almost 50 articles of mine being deleted in one stroke. Emotion aside, I replied that even the lowest Midlands leagues are semi-regional leagues and not local leagues as is the case with the lower reaxches of the football pyramid. That said, it really does make me think what is the point of me giving my time to wikipedia as yet again, a massive load of time and effort - far more than before - looks like being deleted and this time I haven't broken any notability rules like I did, albeit unintentionally, with the CML team articles.

Many thanks for your comment on my talk page re tags. I stand corrected.(Rillington (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

• Just to make it clear, I'm not in favour of deleting your work. A merger would not remove any of the information you created, it would simply have it all in one place. I.e. the lists of teams in each division would be on the same page, rather than seperate articles. In that situation, nothing you created would be deleted

But what the administrator is proposing is an en-masse merger of every article below National 3 (or possibly below North 1/Midlands 1/SW1/London 1) which would see all of these articles (around 100 altogether) deleted and replaced by a single article and therefore 47 (I think) articles created by myself in recent weeks would disappear along with all of the previously created Midlands 2 and below, North Lancs/Cumbria, Yorkshire 1 and Durham/N'umberland and below, London 2 and below and Southern Counties East/West and below articles all disappearing. That's way beyond the 8 or so CML articles that I lost as they were not notable for inclusion and there's no notability issue in play here. (I quoted what you said in italics to make the discussion flow rather easier. I hope you don't mind.)(Rillington (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

PS I've noticed that you deleted the list of teams in National 2 North in 2009-10 that I added yesterday. I have added a comment to the talk page stating the reason I included them in the first place.(Rillington (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

• Good call re changing the title for the list of teams in National League 2 North during the 2009-10 season. Hopefully the line-up for the very first season of this division, called Area League North, can be added although, as I said on the Talk page, I couldn't find out what had become to at least one of the teams that comprised the original line-up.(Rillington (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC))

Just to update you, it appears as though the articles will be retained due to there being no consensus. I did receive two very supportive messages on my talk pages which I appreciated so clearly not everyone sees my efforts as being not worthy of inclusion on wikipedia so that does give me some insentive to continue.(Rillington (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC))

Where are you getting that there are only two relegation spots this season for the 2012–13 Northern Premier League? It was four last year, and English football league system says there are four relegation spots. 71.108.41.250 (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, BBC says that four teams are relegated. So until I see a source that overwhelmingly goes against what BBC is saying, I'm going to leave the page at four relegation spots. 71.108.41.250 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah. That would explain why I haven't been able to find anybody say anything about it. If that's the case, that's something very important and should be included in the article. Otherwise, other people like me would get confused. 71.108.41.250 (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone mentioned the "font" tag in your signature. You don't need to worry about it in the short term. Our talk page archives are full of it, so if Mediawiki wants to serve valid HTML5 it has to deal with all of these uses, which can't be removed because they are in old revisions. If it could do that, it could also handle your signature. But at the moment we just don't serve valid HTML5, because all browsers support the "font" tag just fine. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Delusion23,

Thanks for the heads up. The deprecation of the template has been duly noted (I am not sorry for not participating in the discussion). Having said that, I hope no one is removing Wikify templates from articles just because it's deprecated. At the very least it needs to be replaced by a more relevant template in problematic articles (a list of such templates is being made now, but it's not comprehensive yet).

Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

On the same subject. Thanks for letting me know. --Batard0 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Same here. Thanks Delusion23. Themeparkgc  Talk  02:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What is your opinion on 2012–13 F.C. United of Manchester season‎ in its current state? I have spent the night adding prose to the sections and organized it a little bit. Most of the sources are match reports and FA Cup draws and stuff like that, but overall I think it is looking better. Although I understand that it would still need a considerable amount of work. Red Rebel 05 (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Sesamevoila (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, You appear to be a major contributor to the Glastonbury Town F.C. article. I came across it as it appears on the cleanup listing for Wikiproject Somerset as needing citations. I noticed a large copyvio by an IP editor, which has since been removed. The article still has a banner saying citations needed and as you seem to be familiar with reliable sources for non-league football I was wondering if you could help?— Rod ^talk 20:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to go around and yell at multiple editors to stop using the wikify tag with AWB. It has been talked about multiple times on AWB's talk page and a bug report has been filed. There is nothing to be done until the next version of AWB is released. Bgwhite (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have AWB installed on this computer but will be able to do it in about 2-3 hours; alternatively, this could be a perfect chance for you to start using AWB if it's something you've been meaning to do...? If so, let me know if you need any help. GiantSnowman 14:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, looks like someobody beat me to it! GiantSnowman 17:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

One thing you need to be careful with, is some of its general fixes. With this edit to List of Brighton & Hove Albion F.C. seasons, it changed the sort key in a couple of the categories from the correct Brighton & Hove Albion to Brighton and Hove Albion. I'll fix them in a minute. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

And please ignore the above. It and you were perfectly correct and I've learnt something. I'll fix them back again... Hey ho, Struway2 (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw you removed the Wikify tag from the article.

The editor who added it, User:Hutcher, I've already contacted about making trivial edits. Sorry for not telling them about turning off auto-tagging. I'll keep an eye on their edits for a bit. Also, I'm sorry for not removing the wikify tag. I need to remember to remove that when I see it. Bgwhite (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have noticed that you have been systematically adding {{Underlinked}} tags to Gene Wiki articles. In many cases, these tags are not appropriate. For example, the C1orf49 article contains exactly one line of prose and that line contains two wiki links, one to protein, and the second to gene. Adding more wiki links to this line would normally be considered overlinking. The problem is not that the article contains too few wiki links, but rather the article needs to be expanded. Hence I would appreciate if you would be more selective in adding wikify tags. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

How about updating your edit summary from "(clean up, added wikify tag using AWB)", as you're now adding {{underlinked}} rather than "wikify"? See this edit. PamD 08:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, with this edit you altered {{multiple issues}} from the new syntax to the old syntax. Please try to avoid doing that. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey. It may be a good idea to bring up the problem at WP:AWB as it is AWB making incorrect suggestions. I will refrain from making this change in the future. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I've posted at WT:AWB#Multiple issues. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Another example: AWB only makes the suggestions: the edits are your responsibility. PamD 23:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I wouldn't know the old from new format on most things around here. Delusion, you should upgrade to the latest SVN. The latest version is SVN8414 and can be downloaded from here. If you use AWB alot, it is best to keep updated with the latest SVN version. However, the multiple issues was fixed in a newer version than is available. Send me an email and I can email you the latest copy of AWB. The copy I have was compiled with NET 4.0, so you need that installed. Bgwhite (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I remember starting that debate, and I remember how it developed into a biiig discussion, but I didn't realise that there was then such a big drive to remove all reviews from the infoboxes. I'd seen a few moved, I did a couple and I saw you do plenty, but I didn't imagine that it was an organised project. Good work!! Incidentally, it's a small wikipedia and a small world too. The guy who was putting duff reviews in infoboxes, and who prompted me to start that debate, turned out to be a really decent bloke (from Texas) and I've even traded records with him across the Atlantic. After I put him straight on the reviews of course ;) haha... again, great work - a really useful achievement, that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the table for me. Double sharp (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:St_Marys_A.F.C._logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

		The WikiProject Albums Barnstar
		Yahoo, moving infobox reviews into article space is complete. I hope to work with you again to clear some gigantic backlog. Keep doing what you're doing! J04n(talk page) 16:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, can you explain me would you explain me that edit and that correction? Neither at that revisions nor in the actual state does that article have any HTML content on that page. It has many external links, so {{external links}} might be correct (and maybe even more tags like {{cleanup|reason=multiple headlines}} and {{advert}}). So why did you tag that article? mabdul 20:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't explain why Cleanup-HTML was added.

The first edit removed the wikify tag, which is now depreciated, with one of the tags that should now be used. Specifically the {{Underlinked}} tag.

The second edit fixed the date syntax which wasn't added right on the first edit. Bgwhite (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

New version of AWB is available at [2]. I believe this includes your much desired request to not add the Wikify tag. It does include the update to handle the new {{multiple issues}} syntax. Bgwhite (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It includes the latter but not the wikify thing. You 'll have to wait a little more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Delusion23. I didn't think this one meet criteria for speedy deletion, as there was some coverage in third-party sources, but of course feel free to bring it to a deletion discussion. Regards, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did you revert me here? This section was tagged for cleanup since 2009. The template used was deprecated, and has been replaced with another. It's appropriate for the cleanup tag to record the original date. If dating these tags serves any purpose at all, it makes no sense to use the current date instead of the original. I can't parse your edit comment, so I don't know what you had in mind.--Srleffler (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that it should be deleted. Notability's been cleaned up since it was created and it doesn't pass any test. Nach0king (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Delusion23. Thanks for the graph you added to the GOCE left panel. It really improves it. --Stfg (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem :) I'll try to keep it updated on a monthly basis. Always good to have a quick view of how a project is progressing. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence that the hangman died "c. 2012", but we know he died in or before this year - the one visible, undated, ref in the article says he is dead. I've reverted your change to his dates. PamD 20:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you asked about an automated way to tag WikiProject talk pages on th twinkle prefs talk page, just wanted to let you know Dodobot is designed specifically for that purpose. TimL • talk 07:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I use an AutoHotkey script. I type alt+o and {{WikiProject Olympics|class=stub}} prints out. I type alt+z and {{WikiProject Football|class=stub}} prints out. Script I use is at User:Bgwhite/AutoHotkey. It is pretty easy to understand. Install AutoHotkey. Download my AutoHotkey script and save as anything, but it has to end in .ahk, for example HotkeyScript.ahk. To run the script, just click on the script.

FYI, new version of AWB is out, but still no wikify fix. Bgwhite (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, just letting you know that I removed the prod from the above article as it has previously been proposed for deletion.

Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 01:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Finally! Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Wikify_.28again.29. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Snapshot with rev 8686 is up! It fixes the wikify issue and it is faster than the previous versions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that the bot has finally updated WP:ELEM/PP with the data for the whole month of October (nearly a whole month late!). :-) Double sharp (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for telling me about the above. I have de-prodded it giving an explanation on the talk page. I trust that you will be satisfied by the explanation. If not and you feel you need to go the next step then I would appreciate it if you would inform user:117Avenue and user:Arctic.gnome as I believe that these users may have an interest. If you are unhappy with what I did yesterday then I would appreciate it if you would join in the discussion on Talk:List of federal by-elections in Canada‎ since this article desperately needed splitting and what I did seemed the least destructive/disruptive way of dealing with the situation. Op47 (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I seem to have a red link for the discussion. Op47 (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Saturday [3] :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! Football has that way of making a day perfect! :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello: WRT Hans-Hermann Hoppe, I see you added a particular day to a "broken citation" template, and then removed it. I have subsequently used the "dead link" template on the reference. But now that I see you are an editor with considerable experience, I'm wondering about my "correction". Is "broken citation" the right template to use when we get these old non-linking pages? Or is "dead link" more appropriate for the simple 404 error pages. My understanding is the "dead link" will alert other editors and bots to find and fix either of these problems. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Your reply certainly does help. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I had already added link and category this article, please check again see got any mistake or not. If no more mistake then can delete off the notice or i delete by my own. Thank you K.b.cheng (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find that MCC & Fc united now have to put moston juniors back on rjpf by the start of the 2013/2014 season this will mean the build will not be complete until the start of the 2014/2015 season if it passes the judicial process please could you update your page as there is no chance on this earth fc united will be playing on that site in 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.203.130 (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

From the rules of use for AWB:"Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. " Your edit to Pacific Seafood appears to be covered by this rule, and a quick glance at your recent contribs suggests it is not the only one. [4][5] What AWB users sometime fail to realize is that many of us are not whizzing around automatically editing articles and are using watchlists to keep an eye on articles that we have an interest in. When someone says in an edit summary that they cleaned up an article on our watchlist we tend to go see what improvements have been made, only to find that there was no cleanup at all and the article looks exactly the same. I don't know what you think was cleaned up by that edit, or if you even know what all you did, but it was essentially an edit that was not worth making because it made no difference whatsoever. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that I also think Beeblebrox has some good points. The examples they gave for Postsingular and Pig_stele_of_Edessa had some merit as did the request to use a more descriptive edit summary. I do not think there is any validity to comments that the edits made to the Pacific Seafood were a violation of AWB's rules of use though and left a note as such on the user's page. Just thought you should know. Since most of the AWB rules deal with formatting and the like may I suggest an edit summary of: Fix typos, dates, formatting, references, brackets and links. This should be descriptive enough to cover most things in addition to the expanded edit summary AWB frequently adds. Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll second Kumioko's remarks. Edit summaries can be tricky because you maybe doing alot of things to an article and there is no way to express an edit summary of all what was done. In the edit summary, I generally like to give a wikilink to show the rule of why something was changed. Though for alot of things there isn't a direct wikilink. If you are formatting a date, giving WP:DATEFORMAT helps out alot. Not sure if you know (I didn't for a long time), but under "options" -> "default edit summaries...", you can add/edit/delete edit summaries. Then goto "File" -> "Save Settings", this will cause the same edit summaries to show up when you restart AWB. Bgwhite (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be more specific with my edit summaries in future. I've begun linking to some rules such as WP:LEAD and WP:ORDER. Cheers for the tip of how to save the summaries to save retyping them! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Delusion23,

Aren't you being a bit bitey, by welcoming and notifying of a deletion in the works both at the same time and using templates to do this? Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you think is bitey about that, but no, it isn't. Such notifications are issued dozens if not hundreds of times a day to new users. The message is one of the standard welcome/warn about deletion templates used by WP:TWINKLE. I have never before heard of anyone being berated for leaving a welcome message. I wonder, Ottawahitech, why it seems your name keeps popping up in various places, always with some expression of outrage at a completely routine action related to deletion. You may want to consider the possibility that you are not well informed about how the community views deletion processes or in this case notifications of deletion nominations. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Delusion23, you added multiple issues and notabilty tags to Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi. I think I am still a newbie and not much familair to wiki-rules as you are, that seems to me. I am the main editor of the article, that's why I want to learn more from you. Please explain and descirbe the exact concept of the reliable sources, third party, independent and please also indicate what are the multiple issues for example------?. Have you been through the sources, as I know for notability at least one reliable source is needed, is that not reliable, third party, independent source?.Do you think daily news is not mainstream newspaper and academic figures mentioned in the article written by Khurshid Ahmer, are not qualified for----as your part of the world's newspapers and academic people?. I hope you will teach me in this regard so that I can more better edit and improve the articles. I am also adding this comment on the talk page of the article Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy and positive reaction and collaboration, actually article required only BLP sources tag not any others.Well when I am out of the 3RR I replace that and try to add more wiki-links if needed.Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)