User talk:Ben Moore/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ben Moore. 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 |
Myxobacteria
Hi, I haven't read the stuff in detail, so your probably right about the biology. Also, as you say, it seems like the two kinds of mediation are happening at quite different levels. (To me, the "also" implied that there was another genetic element that regulated it.) I split off the sRNA sentence into another paragraph, which I thought flowed better, but feel free to change as you see fit; you seem to have a better handle on this. Zashaw (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Jebus989★ 09:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 19:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Jebus989★ 19:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
My Edit
If you were wondering what my point on the Scibaby portion of WMC Arbcom it is simple. ChrisO is tying to argue that simply because blocks haven't been appealed is proof that they were scoks. I was a target of the witch hunt. I went through process. It wasn't well laid out. I had to go offsite to find a solution. It took me a month. Most people wouldn't go through with that. ChrisO's assertions are a major falacy that wouldn't hold up under any test of logic. And yes I'm also very skeptical of admins role in this. I was allegedly confirmed by a checkuser done by an admin. That has since been expunged. Given the nature of my hoste it is near impossibl for a check user to return as a sock so I'm very skeptical of the role admins have been playing in this whole Scibaby affair.Bigred58 (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion is lengthy and convoluted, I haven't followed the seemingly endless Scibaby puppet cases. Witch hunt may well be appropriate. Anyway congratulations on the unblock and making it through the messy ArbCom procedures
Jebus989★ 09:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
National Mall
Before adding them back, can you make the claim for the notability of the polo match and science expo on the National Mall talk page as well as the correctness of the placement of the Beck rally outside of the rally section? Thanks. 68.48.150.143 (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Jebus989★ 18:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not vandalising
Dude, I'm not vandalising. Cock rock is synonymous with glam metal, and I'm just adding a link in the See also section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.172.122 (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah I see, my apologies. Though viewing that article, it is an unverified claim that states 'cock rock' is synonymous to 'glam rock'. If you have a reference to back up your claim please add it to the cock rock page in place of the citation needed tag. In future please use the 'edit summary' to describe your edits and they are less likely to be reverted. Consider making an account too :) Again, my apologies
Jebus989★ 15:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I made the templates along time ago, but someone improved it on her career statistics page, which I took and used that after verifing the information to be correct and replaced it on the predecessor and successor template box. Thanks for helping me and telling me to put in an edit summary. Have a nice day Jebus989.69.137.121.17 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Jebus989★ 21:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Untitled comment from recent vandal
Being a scientist doesn't mean you have to be an atheist. I've checked the rules about how to be a scientist and nowhere is it written that Atheism is a requirement. You edited me for not being constructive and I feel that you should be more constructive and not say that because you are scientist that you have to be an atheist. Charles Darwin was a Christian. EL ZEBO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.141.32 (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I was wrong about Charles Darwin but still the argument is sound. One doesn't need to be an Atheist to be a scientist. El 174.24.141.32 (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Zebo
- Oh right, I haven't looked up the rules on how to be a scientist lately. To discuss the userbox, consider its talk page. Your personal beliefs are entirely up to you. To sign and timestamp your posts, please use four tildes (~~~~). Thanks
Jebus989★ 17:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| Just a barnstar to say thank you for fighting the hoards. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC) |
Jebus989★ 07:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello
Nothing wrong with my edit. [1] 83.67.39.175 (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes I was going to say myself -- you are extremely fast. But don't compromise accuracy for speed. That would be a very bad thing. Kind regards, Tommy! 17:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- That goes without saying Tommy2010. The diffs have been RevDel'd as WP:RD3 and the only edit summary was the automated tag:blanking. I am unsure as to how your edit could possibly have been constructive with these two facts in mind. Nevertheless, everyone makes mistakes and if this was one, please use the edit summary in future to explain your content removal and it is less likely to be reverted, thanks Jebus989✰ 18:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
bll turnbull
he's a debased pervert and a piss drinker i've got the info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.42.169 (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Until you've got the reliable source you cannot add dubious defamatory statements to biographies of living persons Jebus989✰ 21:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Reverting edits
You revert edits very fast. Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, if that was meant as a compliment. I mostly only revert really obvious vandalism, which is easy to spot instantly. Also, I use Huggle instead of Twinkle, if you're experienced with vandalism reverting, request rollback rights and give Huggle a try Jebus989✰ 21:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I only need two more vandalism reverts in order to have the rollback rights in order for Huggle to work and it was a compliment. Wayne Olajuwon chat 15:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok cool, well good luck and keep up the good work :) Jebus989✰ 15:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I raised it on the talkpage, your input would be very welcome. TFOWR 19:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and many thanks for that - one of the perils of warning vandals, unfortunately. TFOWR 09:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, yeah it comes with the territory I suppose. I'm going to leave any TPO discussion with this user well alone. Interesting use of talk page though Jebus989✰ 09:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey there
Please refrain from reverting my edits. Not sure what your problem is, but surely you can find more constructive things to do with your time than continuing to vandalize the page of my precious high school. Good day, jack hat. 24.56.180.66 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The Child's Eye DYK
Hi Jebus, that line in the DYK is cited! It's the second sentence of the production second. If there is anything more I have to correct, just let me know. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Replied at the nomination. There are two copies of the sentence, one sourced and one unsourced Jebus989✰ 17:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Lead's generally do not need sources if the information is stated in the article. Either way, I've re-phrased the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I know what you're saying (effectively WP:LEADCITE) but you had two exact copies of the same sentence, both of which were essentially the hook. Aside from the fact two identical sentences in the same article probably shouldn't be happening in an encyclopaedia, the DYK hook is a special case whereby it must be followed with an inline citation Jebus989✰ 09:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. Fair enough. I agree with your suggestion by the way of re-phrasing it. Is it good to go now? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've approved it, keep up the good work! Jebus989✰ 12:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah. Fair enough. I agree with your suggestion by the way of re-phrasing it. Is it good to go now? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I know what you're saying (effectively WP:LEADCITE) but you had two exact copies of the same sentence, both of which were essentially the hook. Aside from the fact two identical sentences in the same article probably shouldn't be happening in an encyclopaedia, the DYK hook is a special case whereby it must be followed with an inline citation Jebus989✰ 09:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Lead's generally do not need sources if the information is stated in the article. Either way, I've re-phrased the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
recall discussion
Hi, my intention was to attract as much discussion as possible. I just created it there to get it started so to speak, it may come to nothing but if you feel it would be better or should be somewhere else please suggest it or also assist to create it and I will delete the one in my userspace, all assistance is appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually if it is not in a good location the sooner it is moved the better, before more users add comments there and links are created. FYI the original idea and discussion about it started here - Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok with your permission I moved the page from User_talk namespace to your user namespace so now the user_talk contains a blank talk page where discussion can occur without editing the actual proposition Jebus989✰ 20:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Links to the user_talk should probably be updated, and it goes without saying that that is a user subpage so you have every right to move it back if you want to Jebus989✰ 20:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Cool, appreciated. There were only a couple of links to update so all is good. Much better to have the attached talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Links to the user_talk should probably be updated, and it goes without saying that that is a user subpage so you have every right to move it back if you want to Jebus989✰ 20:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
83.215.123.233
Hi Jebus, I just thought I'd drop you a note about 83.215.123.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as you welcomed them a couple of weeks ago. I've noticed that they have a long term history of spamming references to one authors publications so have given them an immediate warning. Please let me know if you don't think this is right, but I can't find a single useful edit in their contributions, just spam, and the same occurred from another IP before. I'll be cleaning up their edits. Smartse (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, I was watching this user but had not taken any action and probably would have forgotten to do so until another edit hit my watchlist. I think the 4im is fair, since the previous IP (and possibly more) has been warned Jebus989✰ 12:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yep: 83.215.120.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The edit you welcomed them for seems ok, but based on this I'm inclined to remove it... any opinion? Smartse (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would say remove, if a neutral party feels it adds to the article and restores it then so be it. Thanks for doing the cleanup work Jebus989✰ 13:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok will do. Found the subtle backwards spelling too: Ynaztiw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Smartse (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, that goes back to 2008, good find! For peace of mind, I recommend not looking at the Günther Witzany article on German wikipedia, specifically the IPs editing it... Jebus989✰ 14:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks :) I did a search for his surname and found references they had added. You've kind of got to admire the persistance and variety of articles that they managed to find that they could add references to! I'll drop someone on the German wiki I know speaks English a note to see if they can post in the appropriate place on there to draw someone to it - I'd be willing to make a bet that they've refspammed all over the place there as well! Smartse (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is worth revisiting this every few months. I've certainly removed a few inappropriate Witz G references in the past. Good idea re: cleaning up Deutschepedia. Keep up the good work! --Paul (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am the "mind police" and they've carried on... I've opened a thread at ANI if you wish to comment there. Smartse (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if I'm butting in guys. The way to go is to start a sock puppet investigtion. That will almost certainly result in a block of all his accounts and IPs.See WP:SPI.--Kudpung (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment, but I don't think that would do much, because a) they haven't used them in a way deemed to be inappropriate and b) IPs won't be indef blocked. Smartse (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if I'm butting in guys. The way to go is to start a sock puppet investigtion. That will almost certainly result in a block of all his accounts and IPs.See WP:SPI.--Kudpung (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am the "mind police" and they've carried on... I've opened a thread at ANI if you wish to comment there. Smartse (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is worth revisiting this every few months. I've certainly removed a few inappropriate Witz G references in the past. Good idea re: cleaning up Deutschepedia. Keep up the good work! --Paul (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks :) I did a search for his surname and found references they had added. You've kind of got to admire the persistance and variety of articles that they managed to find that they could add references to! I'll drop someone on the German wiki I know speaks English a note to see if they can post in the appropriate place on there to draw someone to it - I'd be willing to make a bet that they've refspammed all over the place there as well! Smartse (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, that goes back to 2008, good find! For peace of mind, I recommend not looking at the Günther Witzany article on German wikipedia, specifically the IPs editing it... Jebus989✰ 14:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok will do. Found the subtle backwards spelling too: Ynaztiw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Smartse (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would say remove, if a neutral party feels it adds to the article and restores it then so be it. Thanks for doing the cleanup work Jebus989✰ 13:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yep: 83.215.120.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The edit you welcomed them for seems ok, but based on this I'm inclined to remove it... any opinion? Smartse (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You're a star!
|
The Bio-star | |
| For your fantastic contributions of RNA related content. --Paul (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC) |
- Awesome thanks Paul :D Jebus989✰ 20:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
vandalism
So because I didn't leave a template on a user's page, it's my fault that more vandalism occurred? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well in this case yes, indirectly, but I wasn't blaming you for it. Just try to use templates when you revert vandalism, the block system doesn't really work if you don't. Don't take my comments personally, see cleaning up vandalism, 1) Revert 2) Warn and (sometimes 3) Report. Thanks Jebus989✰ 22:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- You weren't blaming me? Really? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Don't take it so personally, I commented on the contributions not the contributor, it's just some advice. We all make mistakes and have things to improve on, me especially! Relax Jebus989✰ 08:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Could have been the way you stated it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 19:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Assume good faith! :) We're all here to improve the encyclopaedia Jebus989✰ 01:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Could have been the way you stated it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 19:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Don't take it so personally, I commented on the contributions not the contributor, it's just some advice. We all make mistakes and have things to improve on, me especially! Relax Jebus989✰ 08:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- You weren't blaming me? Really? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Archiving My Talk Page
Probably not a bad idea. I've been putting it off far too long! Cmichael (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It's raining thanks spam!
- Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
- There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
- If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
GA article
Good work on Toxin-antitoxin system page. Its great to see you got it to GA status. Alexbateman (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Alex! It was much harder than I thought, getting an article up to featured must be crazy! But my final year project will be on toxin-antitoxin systems so hopefully it will continue to improve (time permitting :s) Jebus989✰ 14:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds like you already have the introduction for your project written. I found the first paragraph a great intro into what these things are. I look forward to seeing the page improve! Alexbateman (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment moved from userpage
Dear Jebus989 thank you for correcting my obvious mistake I am very sorry and I hope you except my apology. Thank you for reading this.
Sincerely, Julian— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.190.215 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Small but important point re. [2] - it's not a poll; it's a discussion. Polling got us into this mess, in the first place. Cheers, Chzz ► 17:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, I actually did notice this, and just before going back to change it I scrolled down and saw a discussion post (wait it was actually your post!?) referring to this suspiciously-structured 'discussion' as a poll, so I didn't feel the need to correct myself. Jebus989✰ 19:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Aargh! Heh. Glad you noticed it though. I think it's because, in that thread, I was thinking back to the previous straw poll - the exact same failure to compromise there has resulted in another 6 months where nobody knows if we can/cannot use PC. Chzz ► 19:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Strange format? Do you think? The trouble is, if you put no structure at all, you end up with this and this - and it gets so messy, hardly anyone can be bothered to read it. On the latter of those two, we discussed how to run this - ie, moving long comments to a separate section; if that isn't done, then it does quickly devolve into chaos; it becomes impossible to see what is going on. Chzz ► 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree it is necessary but the support/oppose + brief comment always ends up resembling a poll – though, I suppose, no moreso here than in RfA etc. It is clearer than the discussions you linked, and much clearer than the multiple straw poll talk pages, Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere where the more conventional 'comment-reply' discussion was taking place. I fully support any move that can somewhat-accurately gauge consensus Jebus989✰ 23:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it's hard with a big discussion like that. And yes, it becomes a poll - because that's how people (wrongly) perceive it. For smaller groups, a 'freeform' discussion can work fine - but when there are 20+ people, that tends to get chaotic - someone proposes something, a few agree, someone questions it, discussion ensues, and it all gets lots in the page. So...well, I don't know if the "move discussions" is the best way, but it's the best I could think of, in that case. Apart from that - some of the people opposing, I've asked to "please see #Consensus" in the hope of finding some way forward. Trying to get progress of any kind in regards to PC is...challenging! Cheers, Chzz ► 21:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree it is necessary but the support/oppose + brief comment always ends up resembling a poll – though, I suppose, no moreso here than in RfA etc. It is clearer than the discussions you linked, and much clearer than the multiple straw poll talk pages, Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere where the more conventional 'comment-reply' discussion was taking place. I fully support any move that can somewhat-accurately gauge consensus Jebus989✰ 23:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 14:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
New comment by another user in response to your thread. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Userpage vandalism
Hi, I saw you left the edit summary "I give up the counting..." regarding userpage vandalism yesterday. If you'd like indefinite semi-protection of your userpage, let me know. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the offer, that would be great! It (almost) inevitably gets vandalised by an IP if I revert for long enough Jebus989✰ 20:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done; I can also redact the disruptive edit summaries if you want. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks very much! No don't worry, there was never anything too upsetting :) Thanks again Jebus989✰ 20:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done; I can also redact the disruptive edit summaries if you want. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
proposed deletion of page (Michael Jackson)
Hi there
Sorry to be a pain but the reliable source is Michael himself (my husband) who asked me to add the page I created. Is this not enough? I did explain that I was writing on his behalf at the bottom of the page.
I am not sure where else to look as I don't think the back issues of magazines such as Kerrang will be online though I may be able to find the issue/date from his scrapbooks.
Any advice appreciated.
Thank you
Sharon
Histrel (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there,
- I marked the page with a 'proposed deletion' tag because this is now standard policy for articles written about living people without any sources. Sources do not need to be online for you to quote them though! You can reference offline issues of Kerrang!, they would indeed be classed as reliable sources and you could then remove the BLPPROD tag.
- Secondly, I must point out some of Wikipedia's core policies:
- WP:BAND - the notability guidelines for pages about musicians. Ensure the subject of the article meets one of these criteria.
- WP:NOR - No original research allowed (which your personal experience of your husband would be classed as)
- WP:COI - be careful of editing pages in which you have a 'conflict of interest'.
- WP:NPOV - articles must be written without bias and from a neutral point of view.
- Currently, the article does seem mostly neutral (except for saying your children are 'wonderful'); what it really needs are reliable sources to backup the information you give. I realise that you may know it to be correct, but Wikipedia relies on reliable sourcing and proof - and this becomes especially important in articles about living people.
- If you find some sources, I and other users can help with formatting and wikilinking the article and the article then won't be deleted. I hope this information helps, you're not 'being a pain' - don't hesitate to ask if you have any more queries! Thanks Jebus989✰ 19:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- In fact, I've added a source from the Satan article and removed the tag. Although, the article requires a lot more sources, and the Kerrang! or other news pieces would be great to establish notability Jebus989✰ 19:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and advice. will try and find his old articles scrap book, there may be other references there - sorry I thought they had to be online for some reason. Our children are wonderful (lol) but I will remove that if you think it would be best.
regards
Sharon Histrel (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Haha, I'm sure they are :p No problem and thanks for your contributions, hopefully you'll stick around and edit more articles! Jebus989✰ 21:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Curtis Good/James Jeggo AfDs
Hi there, you may want to look again at WP:NFOOTBALL...regards, GiantSnowman 09:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there, when nominating an AfD, you should state why the page fails a certain guideline, if you had said that the issue was the players had not yet made an appearance I would have voted differently. Will edit them now Jebus989✰ 09:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- A quick look at the articles shows the
0 (0)playing stats...regards, GiantSnowman 09:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)- Indeed, but a quick look at the article also shows A-League player and that was all it took for me to speedy keep! Apologies Jebus989✰ 09:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- No problems, no harm done! Thanks and regards, GiantSnowman 14:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, but a quick look at the article also shows A-League player and that was all it took for me to speedy keep! Apologies Jebus989✰ 09:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- A quick look at the articles shows the