User talk:Tohd8BohaithuGh1/Archive 1

Hello, Tohd8BohaithuGh1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Redirect Pages

Please do not create redirect pages that redirect to nonexistent pages. They will be deleted. Addtitionally if these are test pages, please do not create test pages as they will also be deleted. Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 22:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WikiProject Red Link Recovery

There is no need to make redirects for the red links that only one or two articles link to. In those cases you need to go into the article and edit the red links to the correct links.

From the top of the page: "Pick any entry in the list below. If the red link noted is incorrect fix it, for example by adding a missing character. Even if the resulting link is still red, fixing the link may encourage someone to write the missing article."

For the Unlikely brackets category most of the red links just need a "(" or a ")" to direct them to the right page. Aspects (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Black hole. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. SpinningSpark 16:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Properties of black holes

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Properties of black holes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. SpinningSpark 17:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2021 in sports

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 2021 in sports, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Alinnisawest(talk) 21:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 2021 in sports

A tag has been placed on 2021 in sports requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. --Cocomonkilla ^{(talk) (contrib)} 21:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of September 2021

A tag has been placed on September 2021 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. --Alinnisawest(talk) 21:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Joe jonas, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. I changed the content for a redirection, as the page was about a subject already on Wikipedia. Could you explain your reasoning for changing the back to a previous revision and then adding a deletion tag? Booglamay (talk · contributions) - 23:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Document conversion

A tag has been placed on Document conversion, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Minkythecat (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

September 2021

A tag has been placed on September 2021, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Apparition11 (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In regards to articles like these, they are not yet notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you can't put anything on the page, likely you shouldn't create it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags

Thank you for helping with assessing new pages. Your changes of speedy deletion categories and the addition of templates to already tagged pages is unneccessary though, if you ask me. It doesn't help if pages are swapped from one category to another and adding an additional tag won't speed up their deletion as well. De728631 (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Splitting Microsoft articles

Why do you keep creating small articles with very little information, and then undoing my attempts to merge them into bigger articles? - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Repost of Seed7

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Seed7, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Seed7 was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Seed7, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of The Car & Bike Show for speedy deletion

Hi! Thanks for your efforts in cleaning up Wikipedia - much appreciated. However, I haven't deleted The Car & Bike Show, as it isn't a candidate for speedy deletion. The reason is that it does give an indication of notability, albeit a very small, unreferenced amount. I don't believe that the article should exist as it stands, but I can't delete it through the speedy deletion process. I would suggest you PROD it or go through the AFD process. If you have any questions, please drop me a line on my talk page. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Tohd8BohaithuGh1. You have new messages at StephenBuxton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Small suggestion

Hi, in reference to your Link flooding article, a small suggestion - instead of saving changes to the article several times in a row with very minor changes, consider using the preview button to tweak your editing until you like it, and then save it. Helps save clutter in the history, and if someone else is editing as well, helps cut down on edit conflicts. Unforgiven24 (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

SpyScan

This page is not a speedyable page, hence why I PRODed it; if you read the tag itself it is for pages that read as adverts; things aren't worthy of being CSDed like that just because they are about a product. Ironholds 14:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

However, then how do you get the page deleted, because it has or is:

• no references
• sounds like advertising
• is not notable
• about a rouge spyware app that is spyware
• written like vandalism

Seeking your opinion on this. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A PROD is a proposed deletion; it gets deleted in 7 days if nobody has a problem with that; if they do, it's sent to AfD and gets deleted that way. In reply to your points:

• Lack of references do not make something deletion-worth
• It's written nothing like advertising; does calling something "spyware" sound like good advertising to you? personally i'd fire my agent.
• lack of notability, fine, but it is not "non-notable" within a CSD criteria. You can CSD things if they are non notable people, bands, webcontent or companies/clubs, but for other things it gets more complex and you should take it to PROD or AfD. In addition, you didn't tag it as non-notable you tagged it as advertising, something it clearly is not.
• yes, it's about spyware; I fail to see how that makes it deletion-worthy
• It isn't/wasn't written like vandalism, just badly formatted.

I've replied to your contribution to the Meaburn Staniland AfD, by the way. Ironholds 13:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Imam Mohamud Imam Cumar

Hello i am the writer of the article Imam Mohamud imam cumar and u sent me a letter that says the article will be deleted. please i would like to expand as soon as possible. thanks.--Abgaaloow (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Frame injection

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Frame injection, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Frame injection

I have nominated Frame injection, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frame injection. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrongpedia

Why redirect this to "wikipedia"? Ironholds 14:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

To stop people against wikipedia from making an article on it(?) Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

They can just click on the link and go there anyway. People are unlikely to do so; if they do then an admin will SALT the page (make it impossible to create a page there). I'd like to ask; could you please read the notability rules and guidelines in greater detail before contributing to AfD's. The existence of a book does not make the author inherently notable. Ironholds 14:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thx (re Maintainer)

Thanks much for creating the stub for Maintainer. :-) -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AFC

Hello, thanks for your work with the AFC project. I hope you are getting some satisfaction from it and help us to clear the backlog! Just a small note, that when you put the {{WPAFC}} header on the talk page, you should not substitute the template. Also there is an option to classify the article, for example {{WPAFC|class=redirect}} is for redirects created through the AFC process. Further information is in the template documentation. If there is anything I can help you with, just let me know. Cheers! MSGJ (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Office articles

Please stop undoing my attempts to merge your very small articles into larger articles. Next time you want to split an article, please discuss it first. Thank you. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

redirects

Please don't create redirects to pages based on every spelling of the words in the title ever in the english language like, ever. It's a waste of your time, counterproductive (in that they take up space without actually doing anything) and completely pointless. If you're out of ideas of things to edit then leave me a message and I can suggest some stuff, but what you're doing now is not helpful, especially for the poor schmucks on NPP. Ironholds 23:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance templates, maintenance categories and you

Hi, just in regards to the edits you made to GNU Paint and ESvn; it isn't necessary to manually add categories such as Category:Articles to be expanded, they are added automatically by the {{expand}} template and what tends to happen is people fix the article, remove the template and then can't figure out why it is still in the category! Also please don't "subst:" maintenance templates, as User:SmackBot can't add the date to the "subst:'d" code. Thanks, ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 23:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Empty talk pages

Hi, I don't think it's helpful to create a talk page for an article, as you've done at Talk:Consumer activism, just by adding the template: {{talkheader}}. If I'm looking at an article, perhaps stub-sorting it, and I see there's a talk page, I'll go there in case there's discussion I ought to read - it's mildly irritating when it's only a project or two, but more irritating if there's nothing there at all (except the template). I think I've noticed you doing this elsewhere, but it isn't standard practice (if it was thought necessary, then I'm sure there would be software doing this automatically whenever a page was created), so I'd be grateful if you could stop. Thanks. PamD (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi,

I received a message from you regarding my sandbox. What seems to be the issue? Isn't my sandbox a place for me to test article and syntax? I just joined so I may be incorrect. I am merely preparing text for an edit I will be making in the future.

Thanks JCP 19:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Woops, I guess I clicked the wrong link. I see the error, thanks. JCP 19:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescp (talk • contribs)

speedy tagging

Hello. I am a little bit concerned with your use of speedy deletion tags. Note that in the last few minutes the following speedy deletion requests have been declined:

• River (ward)
• G DATA AntiVirus
• Ochopintre
• Chasing Darkness
• Rutherglen castle
• 220 (t.A.T.u. Song)
• Greatest Hits Volume Two (The Judds album)

Some of these articles were the first edit of new users and there is nothing more frustrating and disappointing to new users than a speedy deletion notice that appears 20 seconds after they've created the page. Conversely, some of these articles were started by long-standing contributors and you should respect their experience about what is and what isn't a valid encyclopedia article. I think it would be best for you to either stop doing newpage patrol or seek counsel from someone who has been doing it for a while. While I appreciate you trying to help, the fact is that wrong speedy deletion tagging is quite damaging (for the reasons explained above) and time consuming for admins who often have to go back and explain the mistake to new users. When in doubt, try asking the author about the article, see if you can fix it, put it on your watchlist and return to it the next day or send it to AfD. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Now why on earth would you tag Pocono Mountain West for speedy deletion? The article has been there for two years, has been edited by a different editors over that time and has never been the subject of any sort of deletion debates. Sorry but you really have to stop. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've also removed a speedy tag (twice) on Dag Achatz which you nominated under G1, patent nonsense. I cannot understand why, the article is far from perfect, but it has just been created, and it does need some work, but it's perfectly readable. I know when i started new page patrolling, I sometimes got a bit carried away nominating things for deletion, but just take a breath before you press the button! I found it worked well for me! If you want to have a chat about this, feel free on my talk page or here. :) --Ged UK (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagging a village for speedy deletion citing "no context"?

In this edit you tag Angoor Ada, a recently created article about a Pakistani settlement for speedy deletion citing that the article lacks context. I find this rather incredulous and I urge you to elaborate on your reasoning for this action. __meco (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of July 2021

A tag has been placed on July 2021 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ottre (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of June 2021

A tag has been placed on June 2021 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ottre (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of February 2021

A tag has been placed on February 2021 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ottre (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of May 2021

A tag has been placed on May 2021 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ottre (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bedder 6

FYI: The speedy deletion of the above article, which was requested by you, has been contested. Please see it's talk page for more details. AlexJ (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chelonatheosism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chelonatheosism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelonatheosism. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Assassin (Song)

Hi, I have declined your speedy request for Assassin (Song) on the grounds that it's not actually nonsense. Please read Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, articles that do not meet either of the two criterion listed are not eligible for CSD G1. Happy to answer any questions you might have on my talk page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC).

Speedy deletion of 嵌入式linux中文站

Heve you read the content of this page? It's clearly promotional. Rough translation via Google:

Embedded linux points to the broad masses of Chinese embedded linux Chinese fans to provide a study, discussion, study the fine embedded linux platform, all of the services provided free of permanent, welcomed the overwhelming majority of embedded linux enthusiasts often visit our web site, also welcomed Social insight and good corporate sponsorship

-- The Anome (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Userfying articles

Hi. I see that you've userfied several articles and nominated the resultant redirects for speedy deletion. I wanted to ask you to please take a moment when you do this to let the users know where they may find their work. If you would prefer not to do that, then please don't nominate the resulting redirects immediately for deletion, as this may make it extremely difficult for them to figure out what's happened. A good many people who contribute blatantly incomplete articles to Wikipedia are relatively new and easily puzzled. :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why you are doing this - on the face of it it is extremely disruptive. We now have links from article space to userspace, which is not allowed. Ros0709 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is to provide an alternative to flagging with CSD so they can work on it in their userspace rather than the main article space. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

But there's no suggestion these are articles in development is there? There's no note to the user so that they understand what you've done and this isn't standard practice. Ros0709 (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are using this as a back door method to speedy delete articles without being an adminsitrator and which in some cases wouldn't be speedy candidates (especially in some cases (Woolwell TTC) you've then tagged the article space article for speedy delete as a redirect to user space. In at least one case (Numbered street) you've got it wrong as the user didn't want it moved (as they've moved it back) and the article still hasn't been deleted - indeed I doubt it could be speedied. Although I am not aware of any specific policy against what you're doing it certainly goes against the spirit of the deletion policy and against established practice. IMO it is not very civil. Therefore I urge you to stop this course of action. Dpmuk (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(It appears this way to me also, although I did not say so per WP:AGF). A further problem is that the article is _supposed_ to be edited by all. Any editor can dispute a speedy tag and any editor can work on it. If you move it into user space they can't. I think you should assume that if any editor creates an article in article space, that's where they want it. Ros0709 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point - I should probably have said that I assume their reasons for doing it are good (I can certainly understand their reasoning). I was pointing out what it looks like and why this may not be a good idea. I don't think they're delibrately ignoring policy but it looks that way and that's likely to result in problems for them. Thanks for pointing out that I could have put it better. Dpmuk (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved a couple of the articles back but stopped (a) because that's edit warring somewhat, and (b) because most can't move back anyway - the redired from the original place is in the way. Looks like this needs admin intervention. I'll take this to AN/I but Tohd8BohaithuGh1 - are you in agreement with this? Ros0709 (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved some back as well and have also tagged some I can't for speedy delete (the one in article space that is) so they can be moved back - I think there's consensus enough here that the moves were in error that it isn't really edit warring. Dpmuk (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

←Hi. Just to provide context here for all parties, there are cases where userfication may be appropriate, as set forth at Wikipedia:Userfication, and it can even be a courtesy. However, that document does address usage of this technique to circumvent the deletion process, which is inappropriate. It should only be used in obvious cases. Using it inappropriately may be disruptive. And, as I indicated above, we should communicate with users when we do this, as otherwise they are unlikely to find their content. New contributors are not usually familiar enough with the Wikipedia environment to check their contribution history, for example. There is one template for userfication with which I am familiar, Template:Nn-userfy. This one should be used with care, and only when it clearly applies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of We've Got The Toaster

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as We've Got The Toaster, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 15:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you then redirect it to User:Emmaissocoollike/We've Got The Toaster? --Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 15:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not redirect it; it was automatically redirected when I moved it. That's why I flagged it for deletion. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

kk, sorry for the inconvenience. --Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 16:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Me and problems

Hi Thanks for your welcome message. I'm interested to know where I've gone wrong - still new to this! Thanks

(Tonytunnycliffe (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:Disavian/Userboxes/No Evil Boxes

Userboxen go to Miscellany for deletion, not AFD. I would have moved it for you, but I see nothing harmful about this userbox. How do you think it's POV? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to know how it's POV, if you don't mind. Funnily enough, the userbox itself has a link to WP:MFD. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing my page.

Hi there,

I have been trying desperatley to understand why my page is being removed.

I have dedited out the content that seems to be soliciting a company, so I don't uderstand specifically, what I am doing wrong.

Can you help me.

What parts of the articvel are in appropriate and I will gladly change them.

Hope you can helpYitzhaac Pesach (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC).

Inappropriate use of speedy deletion

With regard to your third request for speedy deletion of Bedder 6 may I draw your attention to the lead of the Criteria for speedy deletion, specifically the part which says "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead.". In the page history, you'll notice "00:05, 6 September 2008 RMHED (Talk | contribs) (2,663 bytes) (not spam)" - this constitutes reasonable doubt over the speedy. Please do not re-add the speedy request. If you feel strongly that the article does not meet the requirements to have an article on Wikipedia, please go through the standard deletion process, which allows for discussion and debate. AlexJ (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And Proposed Deletion is for articles which are "uncontroversially a deletion candidate". Again with two editors, plus myself contesting the deletion request it's not exactly uncontroversial. I've now done what you should have and nominated it for the standard deletion procedure, which'll allow for discussion. In my experience on WP, I've found engaging in conversation is much more productive than sticking tags everywhere. AlexJ (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

schedule for deletion

You have scheduled an article I just wrote for deletion, however you left no further information as to why. I was wondering If you could provide me with any further information as to why. The article is "List of number-one rock hits of 2003 (UK)" Thank you --Hammard (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

your use of prods

i had to rvv a few prods you did today because you just have just but the prod up and leaving it blank please put a reason in the prod to say way the article should be deleted please do keep putting up blank prods thanks and please do not readd them to articles which have the prod already removed. articles can not be proded twice please take to afd for you want ok.Oo7565 (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to way in. You really do need to make sure you put a reason that is based in policy/guidelines. People otherwise will take your PRODs out of context and you will lose the good faith that people normally try to extend to people on here. BTW one of the articles you PRODed Bedder 6 is at AfD now (possibly others as well). You may wish to visit the debate and let us know the reasons you think the article (and the others you PRODed) should be deleted. 83.100.221.38 (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Could you please use real edit summaries when you edit? An edit summary of "edited page" is not helpful to other editors. Its quite obvious you edited the page since your name is on the history list of the article. Editors would like to know what it is you did. As well please don't mark edits as minor when they're not truly minor. Marking edits minor is only for minor spelling mistakes fixes or small formatting fixes. If you're editing more than a few characters on a page you should not mark them minor. After looking at your recent edits I've also started this thread on AN/I to get some more input regarding them Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tohd8BohaithuGh1.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_recent_edits.--Crossmr (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

and through a slip of my mouse, that edit wasn't supposed to be minor^^--Crossmr (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User sandboxes

I undid your edits to user sandboxes, as I couldn't see any problems with them, and you had replaced the headers with the Wikipedia Sandbox version, which is incorrect as they are user sandboxes. Although many of them were not edited recently, they are still permitted, unless they are being used for deleted content or otherwise not related to the encyclopedia, and then they should be nominated for deletion (at Miscellany for deletion) if you think they should be deleted. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

this and some other problems are now being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You may wish to comment. DGG (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't edit my sandbox to delete my stuff [1] - thanks --Matilda ^talk 20:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sethayrabe

Hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secthayrabe (talk • contribs) 16:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Really Awesome Welcome Message

I saw the welcome message you used on User talk:Westhydeian. Do you mind posting the link to it on my talk page so that I may use it in the future? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good idea one editor putting a template on that tells people to go to another editor's talk page! Doug Weller (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No that isn't a terribly good idea. You're volunteering someone for something I'm fairly certain they didn't volunteer for.--Crossmr (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've told CocoaGuy. Doug Weller (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard / Incidents posting regarding your edits

Hello, Tohd8BohaithuGh1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your recent edits. Please respond to some of the requests for clarification. Your failure to respond or explain some of your more confusing edits could be seen as disruptive and possibly leading to blocks. Please take the time to respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tohd8BohaithuGh1.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 recent edits. Thank you -Optigan13 (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been asked to explain some of your edits and failed to do so. You've also been asked not to edit other users pages and also continued to do so. If you continue to make these kinds of edits and not engage in any kind of discussion or explanation of them, they can be seen as disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Crossmr (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably important for you to realize that this would definitely not be a case of "blocking people randomly". In fact, it would be the textbook useful block: when an editor, despite good intentions has a negative net effect on the project, we block him until problems are addressed. You seem unwilling to admit mistakes and unwilling to listen to concerns and adjust your editing. Currently, the effort that others are forced to put into monitoring your edits and repairing the damage outweighs the benefits of your good edits. You can stubbornly refuse to listen but don't expect others to put up with it. I'll copy this on your talk page with a few extra problems that were not mentioned above. (paragraph copied from the ANI thread) Among other problems: if you look at your move log [2] there are many instances in which you've moved things into userspace without notifying the creator. The result is that the redirect is deleted and that the user has no clue where his page was moved. In addition, some of these pages don't even belong in userspace because they should be deleted as spam or because they're perfectly good stubs that are sent to userspace oblivion for no good reason. It's a bit difficult for me to show you the diffs because the deleted history is only available to admins (like myself) but it's a real problem that requires people to clean up behind you. You also seem to be userfying articles on fairly random criteria, as if you userfy newpages that you're not sure what to do with. So I'm sorry if I sound unfriendly or dickish but the next time you screw up with newpage patrol or the next time you use prod tags improperly, I'm blocking the account until you either promise to stop working in this area or promise to get some sort of mentoring to do it properly. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I also note that you're approved for AWB. Note that this can also be taken away if you're careless. It's one thing to fix problems that you create here and there, it's another to fix a bunch of batch edits. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been making far more mistakes than just that. Editing other users sandboxes, reverting new users in the main sandbox, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And could you stop with the misleading edit summaries? [3] This is NOT link repair. You're creating redirects.--Crossmr (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Was there some part of don't edit other people's user space you didn't understand before? Whether you're fixing redirects or otherwise, please refrain from changing things in other people's user space, edits like these [4] are not appropriate.--Crossmr (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

and this [5] is boderline uncivil and disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I would like a response and a promise to stop. If not, I see no alternative but to block you. Doug Weller (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you took the time to come back and edit (and getting yourself another note on your behaviour in the process) the previous warning about a block stands. You were again asked to explain your edits and you have failed to do so. This can only be seen as disruptive behaviour and your next disruptive edit will result in a block since you can't be bothered to discuss things or alter your behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, sorry about the edit, I did not know that though. I was not even making a big change, just a small fix. I promise to stop disruptive edits to Wikipedia. If you still wish to block me, then go ahead and do so. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A small fix was adding a POV tag to a users page [6]? That also requires clarification not just the editing of other users pages in general.--Crossmr (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did not realize that it was in the user space. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What did you think it was? that wikipedia had an article whose sole content was 'soccer is the best sport ever'? And your response was to add a pov tag to that?--Crossmr (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

Unfortunately I had to rollback your edits of Decipherment of rongorongo as they broke the referencing system and made it illegible. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain the "referencing system" that you are talking about. You're saying that my edits in using {{cite web}} are bad? Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

They were for that article which is a Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and used a different style of referencing (the Harvard style). When you changed the references you made the references illegible. If you look at an old version of the article after you changed it [7] and look down at the references, you will see what I mean. Also, it is not permissible to change the reference style of an article's primary editor without discussing it and getting consensus on the talk page first. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Adoption, please look into it

You've run into a lot of problems lately regarding your edits, which is no big deal as we all make mistakes. The problem was you didn't really respond or change when people pointed them out to you, which you're doing now which is great. But I think you would have a much better time on wikipedia if you found a user to adopt you, so they could work with you on all the various things you're interested in and help point out and clean up any mistakes. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your "Confusing" tag on Richard Gage

Could you specify what needs clarification on Richard Gage? Thanks. TheMolecularMan (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your welcome. Best wishes! -Dicting (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

|-|ELLO, th4n|<S T0 J00 PH0R \/\/elC0|\/|1NG |\/|e

|-|ELLO, th4n|<S T0 J00 PH0R \/\/elC0|\/|1NG |\/|e \/\/ItH +h4T $+up1|) +3mPL4t3 0ph YouR$. \/\/1|<iPedi4 1$ BOriNG. \/\/1K1P3|)1a is ThE \/\/0rL|)'5 LaR9E5T 3|\|CyCLoPEdI4. Te|-| kWIc|< BROWn r4+ |\/|4rCh3|) 0vEr tEh D3$3R+. 7ealT-ba9 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, could you please care to un-1337 your text so that I can understand it? Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

|\/|3, i dO No+ U|\| LEE+ |\/|Y |\/|E5$@935 5O jU5+ li\/e wi+|-| 1T 0R 3LS3 I \/\/ILL 5u3 the mese@ge 0n 4he t@1k P@G3. 7ealT-ba9 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcoming

Hi: nice to see another welcomer (I do it myself), but I noticed that a lot of the users you are welcoming have not yet made their first edit. I don't know whether you're aware, but there is a convention that users - whether anons or account holders - are not welcomed until after they have first contributed. This helps save on server resources, since many named accounts never actually edit, and it also allows the use of more specialised welcome templates like Template:Welcomespam and Template:Welcometest if a first edit turns out to be unhelpful. See Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee#Users_without_any_edits for details. Cheers, Karenjc 11:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

welcome

thank you for much kind welcome mr tohd8BohaithuGH1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeansaregoodyes (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

MERLIN

Are You A Fan Of The New TV Show MERLIN On BBC One If So A New Wikia Has Just Started On www.merlin.wikia.com and it desperatly needs pages editing and adminastrators so if you would like to edit or be a part of the community start editing and drop me a message on the user name Michael Downey. Thanks

Again ignoring requests on your talk page

You are persisting in adding welcome menus to users with no contributions although it has been made clear to you that you shouldn't. If you are going to continue in this way I will block you. Doug Weller (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or do things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to remind you that the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Please don't constantly add welcome templates to user talkpages without users making contributions, this is an encyclopedia not a Social Network site - keep this in mind. Dark Mage 19:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

question

Hello, I'm creating an article about my school, I don't know how to insert the graph at the far right that most articles have how do you do that??

Can you get back to me ASAP

thanks --HCSTAACT (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the text should be like this? I'm not sure, so if you could pinpoint the article you are talking about specifically, then I could help you better. To do this, use <div align="right">Your text here!</div>. Re your article - try to find more reliable references, such as news sites or important sites. See WP:SOURCES. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(images only) If you mean only images, first upload the file and then use [[Image:Your image filename here.png|thumb|Your text here.]]. Replace Your image filename here.png and Your text here. before using. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Last warning

Hello again. Look, you are exhausting people's patience at a very rapid pace. People have come to your talk page over and over but you haven't seriously engaged in thorough discussions with them. Like I said earlier, the time and effort wasted on fixing problems with your edits is currently greater than the benefit of your good edits. This is not hard for you to change: listen to others, ask questions, read how-to guides. People will be happy to help you become a better editor but you need to let them. You seem genuinely interested in participating positively so why not heed the advice? That being said, this is really the last warning I'm giving you. In particular, I will ask have your AWB access removed if you persist in using it carelessly and I will block you the next time you fail to adjust to criticism. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Then in particular, what do you want me to do? Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dark Mage gives helpful tips below. But the first things you need to do are

a) admit mistakes (which you have started to do to a limited extent)

b) be responsive and actually discuss problems with whoever points them out to you (you never did respond to the earlier adoption proposal, never sought help regarding newpage patrol, etc)

c) show that you adjust when people ask you to

d) be much much more careful when getting into areas that involve mass edits. In particular, this is why I think that removing your access to AWB might be the next step. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In regard to your comment, towards Pascal.Tesson have you considered looking through the Wikipedia:Department directory and do a number of tasks - view my contributions I'm a New page patroller, and a Recent Changes patroller- I also undergo certain updates for templates on other wikimedia sites, have you considered doing something like this or try Lupin Anti-vandal Tool and read through the instructions. Dark Mage 18:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting the anti-vandal tool! Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just make sure you stay way within the policy - if you're unsure if an edit is whether or not vandalism then leave it alone for other editors to view, this is what I sometimes do whether or not I'm unsure about the type of edits which IP user's do. Dark Mage 19:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Extra note about your most recent edits: there is legitimate concern about your use of automated or semi-automated tools. For instance, you're now using anti-vandal scripts but you end up reverting as a "good faith edit" an addition that includes "Jessica Alba is playing the sex addicted slut." [8] Sure, I'm nitpicking. But at this stage, it might be good for you to spend some time away from scripts and do some of that patrolling the old-fashioned way: edit/preview/write-edit-summary/save. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind for any signs of vandalism, use Warnings and notices templates occasionally when you welcome an IP with a standard welcome template like the one which you used on User talk:209.30.242.125 it tends to give that person the wrong expressions and continue to do what they do - if you use the warning template like {{subst:test}} or {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} it'll give them a clear warning, it'll also be easier for Administrators to block that person depending on how many he/she has received view for example User talk:205.143.204.198 that person has a lot of warnings due to the amount of vandalism the person received. Although welcoming users is good but in some situations you might be wise in giving out warning templates or those which I've mentioned rather than given them welcoming templates - users more commonly give out welcome templates when he/she has registered and had done a few edits not when they've first registered as it may drove away that person and we would have lost another contributor which we don't want to loose - also it maybe wise to view Wikipedia:Vandalism as it gives clear instructions of what to do. Dark Mage 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcomeing user box

Hello, Thanks for welcoming new users to the wiki. Also thanks for using my welcome box, it is a great complement. I would just want to tell that it still links to my talk page. I will try to fix it, but it is a small detail. Also why did you pick my user welcome box. Happy editing, Cocoaguy ここがいい_contribs^talk Review Me! 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your user talk page. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yawn

I was adding to what was already a load of bollocks. Remove it all. Lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.203.12.242 (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

very much for the barnstar. :) Appreciate it - Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth did you revert my comments which (as part of the UK MMA) community were accurate... and leave the bit that someone added at the bottom saying "Shes a cunt and has crabs"? The piece that i added was utterly true and IMO of interest and useful in regards to a page containing information about a person... which is surely the point of wikipedia. I shall re-add my peice... please do not remove it unless you know it to be untrue.

One again you have removed my edit which is CONSTRUCTIVE. Please tell me why this is. What is the point of an editing feature when the over enthuasitic mods remove all edits. If you know my edit to be untrue please let me know why.

Clay Aiken

My edit to Clay Aiken was a referenced/sourced factual edit. It was not vandalism. If you don't like the content, that's your problem. It's a factual, relevant, encyclopedic piece of information. The source was credible. Please don't continue to alter valid edits. CouplandForever (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar. I appreciate that. Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

CoupLand - I too have the same problem with this over-enthusiastic mod... if you read above you can see were apparantly not the only ones

Blocked

I have blocked your account for 12 hours. Given the typical time at which you edit Wikipedia, it's likely that you won't really notice but I feel it's important to have a block logged for future reference. You just cannot continue to be careless in your patrolling. This did need to be reverted since the source was a bit dubious but a simple Google news search would have made it pretty clear that the editor was in fact acting in good faith. (As it turns out, the story is legit but this is somewhat irrelevant.) The point is that by identifying the edit as vandalism and by failing to contact CouplandForever (talk · contribs) to discuss the edit, you ended up angering yet another editor. A little earlier you reverted as vandalism edits of Laudak (talk · contribs) [9]. I'll grant you that his edits were questionable but they most certainly were not vandalism. Perhaps what threw you off is that in reverting himself he ended up accidentally restoring this obvious vandal edit. A more careful look at the history would have made that clear and it would also have led you to notice that Laudak has been editing Wikipedia for over a year without any incident and has contributed to that article before. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

NEVER Machine translation

Thanks for joining ja.wp. Please never use machine translation since machine translation technologies which involve Japanese language are relatively very poor and in the most case they do not generate sentences we can understand, or only generate totally corrupted sentences. Additionally, using the result of machine translator can be copyvio depends on the translator you used. Because of these, we do not welcome posting articles created by machine-translator. If you need help, you can ask here.--Peccafly-talk-hist 05:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Andrew McMaster

If you're going to place afds on athletes you should learn the basic standards. See the discussion there, by others--you nominated an Olympic competitor from the 70s for lack of ghits--and the nature of his notability was clear on the face of the article. DGG (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi I saw your AfD mentioned above and looked on this page and then at your contribs. I have a suggestion which might improve your edits/your relationship with other editors a lot. Don't use Twinkle. I've never used it or any speeding-up tool;

• a) because I don't have a technical mind enough to even know how to use it, and
• b) because I get things wrong often enough without increasing the speed of my wrong edits.:)

Hope this helps, Sticky Parkin 10:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I go further and strongly suggest you simply observe for a while, because although I believe you are not intending to cause problems, you are. Read the policy, too. Right now, you're a bit of a loose canon, and sooner or later an admin will lose patience. Ros0709 (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your welcome! -Dicting (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ara Babajian

I've undone your Twinkle-assisted reversion on Ara Babajian. In this case, Juggalo541 was not vandalizing the page; Babajian is actually in a band named Star Fucking Hipsters. - Jredmond (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Stanhope_Road_School

(If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Stanhope Road School, you will be blocked from editing) Thanks Tohd8BohaithuGh1 for your opinion, I will take it as that only. I see that we both need to learn some points here. You as an expert idenifiying vandalism & me as an amatuer updating information to an article I originally created with Wikipedia.

Tohd8BohaithuGh1, what part of "use vandalism warnings with care" do you not understand? I'm asking you again: stop using Twinkle and the like. Take time to do patrolling the old-fashioned way, it will force you to use more precise rationales in your edit summaries and you'll learn how to do things right. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle is much faster and easier when reverting to more than one revision back. Plus if you do it the regular way, someone else has probably already reverted the vandalism. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, but how is it bad if somebody else has alredy reverted the vandalism? - Jredmond (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Because they leave you checking every page behind them at the recent changes page, and getting none done yourself. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking this to AN/I again and recommend you be blocked for disruption. This has gone on too long and you don't seem to really care about working with anyone here as you just continue to make problem edits over and over.--Crossmr (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of things on the Wiki to work on

Hi Tohd, I notice you may be running into a problem because of your vandalism fighting. While fighting vandalism is good, it may be a good idea to learn some of the other Wiki skills and become involved in those activities while letting this one relax for a bit. Have you got any articles in your sandbox? With all of your energy and time that you have been investing in combating vandalism, you could probably roll out some nice articles. We also need people to look up citations or more correctly, to find citations. It would be good to add balance to your time on Wikipedia. You will have a better editing experience. I would appreciate any article you decide to write and would be happy to edit it for you. Cheers,⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi. I have blocked your account for 24 hours. Your response to the concerns brought by myself and Jredmond clearly indicate that you either don't understand what's problematic with your edits or don't care. I can't let this continue forever: if you can't do recent changes patrol responsibly then do something else. Many editors, myself included, have been very patient and have offered both advice and counsel but obviously we're not getting through. I do hope that you will continue participating in the project but I will not hesitate to block you again for a longer period if you can't address these problems. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Username

Hi Tohd, I was wondering about your username, does it mean something? It just makes me so curious:) Sticky Parkin 12:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really, it's just a mixed up version of "Todd" and a couple of random characters to make it unique. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

It would be an honour to adopt you :) Please consider taking all the tool thingies off your account, and have this lovely box instead, which you may put on your userpage:

. P.S. You just did some good WP:WikiGnome type edits.:) Sticky Parkin 17:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Todd

Hey Todd I just wanted to say how pleased I am with what I see as an improvement in your edits today. I hope to see many more good edits:) Sticky Parkin 00:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Todd- are you ok? Please come back and edit.:) Sticky Parkin 17:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Surry ebuoot zee fundeleesm pleese-a forgive-a me-a i ves just testing CoolSolidWater (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Academy of Lille

If you are using a machine translator you may need to improve the grammar etc such as remove any extra 'the's before posting it, or making the order of words seem more natural. You can clean up machine-translated or even rough self-translated articles or improve on them a bit before posting them. You could simply do that in your user space, or in the edit window before posting. Sticky Parkin 14:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Thanks a lot for your appreciation!! ^LeaveSleaves _talk 19:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

hey!!!!!!!!

GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU COMMIE BITCH!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.35.64 (talk • contribs)

Hi Tohd, if I happen to see anything like the above on your page in future, would you like me to revert it? Or do you like to keep it, (some people find it a sign they are doing some good vandal reversion work.:) ) Sticky Parkin 23:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really, though I do find the comment offensive, despite the fact that Wikipedia is not censored. I could consider hiding it was a offensive comment navbox though. Thanks for asking. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored does not mean personal attacks are ok. :) Although we don't own our talk pages, we are largely (within the limits of the spirit of free editing and collaboration; -wiki) given dispensation over what is on our own talk page and within certain limits can remove anything on it we are uncomfortable with, providing you have respect for what other users are trying to say when they message you. But vandalism and stuff like this can be removed on sight. Sticky Parkin 02:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi. Thanks for the barnstar :)

I suggest you use Huggle (the latest working version is 0.7.12) over Twinkle, as it is somewhat faster for vandalism :D Otherwise, Twinkle is very nice for CSD and such. DavidWS (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would advise against you using huggle at this point, your use of automated tools was what was causing problems in the past. At the very least Slow down as you seem to making a lot of reverts of good faith edits. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

help!

Can you just tell me how I can change the name of my entry from "Roger howard" to "Roger Howard"- tiny difference but seems impossible to do!! many thanks R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger TT Howard (talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've done that for you. However, please cite your sources when you write an article. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

vandalism!

What are you going on about? Cheers Speedo89 (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit that I reverted was vandalism because you deleted content from Wikipedia. Please do not do this again in the future or you may find your editing privileges taken away. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Moron

state of wu

i was just adding the former state template. theres no controversy as to whether it was a state or not.162.84.164.178 (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is not, but you did delete information. For example, before your edit, the year_start looked like "|year_start = 221 BCE ", but after your edit it looked like "|year_start = BCE ". Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

oh because i got the wwrong date, so i was going to put in the correct one.162.84.164.178 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bowie Song

Hi! Did you undo my change to the Bombers page? My edit doesn't even seem to show in the history page anymore. I think it is a great idea to include lyrics on song pages. Collect all information in one place. Is that not the idea of wikipedia? Sure it would be great if the lyrics were not inline but in a lyrics box on the right. It would also be great if they could be inserted using a custom html tag such as <lyrics></lyrics> to avoid inserting the manual line breaks. I wonder who chooses what is considered constructive and what isn't? Are there democratically coordinated guidelines organized by information type or do administrators choose at their own discretion? I love Wikipedia! It's a great project! All the best, Gerald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.136.92 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted changes

The edit I made was not vandalism. I fixed the reference link and title. Click on the reference link. You will find that it is broken. The correct address is http://wcbstv.com/watercooler/Bratz.Jade.Expletives.2.240942.html

The correct title is "When Good Dolls Go Bad For Christmas" not the truncated "When Good Dolls Go Bad".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.103.183 (talk • contribs)

Okay, sorry for the inconvenience - I have reverted it back to your version. Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.103.183 (talk • contribs)

Concerning Mixed Martial Arts Unified Rules

Ammendments to the unified rules of mixed martial arts now allow elbow strikes in all forms. The ABC (Boxing commisions)had a meeting to discuss the unified rules and made this ammendment, along with the "mohawk" definition of striking the back of the head and others. If you could change the page to reflect this (or allow me too) it would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.172.76 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The link on The New Cars page to "Not Tonight" goes to a song by a completely different artist. Ergo, it's misinformation, and shouldn't be linked. You can look if you like. Also, there's really no reason to have a header for a non-existant section, i.e. references, as there aren't any references in the article. This is explained in the edit summary I left after editing, as that's what the edit summary is for. I have restored these cleanups. Thanks. 71.164.116.18 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted changes

On Mars and life in it, I did as requested by the "update" label, since I chance to work in this field. I wish not to start any WoE, so please don't revert it again in block and, if you think there is any debatble point, kindly say it here. No hurry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.250.52.128 (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Tohd8BohaithuGh1, your revert was abusive as 201.250.52.128's edit was clearly constructive, as was Mr2323's to Reyli. Please don't be too trigger happy with the undo button and take the time to explain in the history what the editor made wrong to your opinion. Be conscious that such a reckless behaviour may discourage new good-faith editors. — Xavier, 23:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe you made mistake,

You reverted my edit to the Reyli page, citing it as unconstructive. I believe this was a mistake on your part, please review it and or be more careuful. I added an image to article showing the person discussed. Please remember, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and check edits more carefully before reverting. -- Mr2323 (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

edit: The elements of style

I modified the links, one is broken and the other two were reviewed, so I modified the last date of access. Reverted to modified links. Nando.sm (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Slow down

Todd, you were doing amazing for a while just using twinkle, now you've started with huggle you're starting to make mistakes again. You were doing so well! Slow down. There is no deadline. Remember that Huggle is mainly designed to revert vandalism rather than making changes to articles, as far as I can tell. Work with your fellow editors to improve articles. You really need to concentrate on working with others, people have already paid you compliments for things and thanked you for things on your page, so I know you have it in you. Sticky Parkin 23:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you are saying I should only revert the really obvious vandalism? Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Who says you need to spend all your time reverting vandalism and working with automated tools? You don't need to worry about edits like that, as a bot will pick it up and revert it. Spend some more time working on WP:Articles for creation, or spend some time looking at the oldest unpatrolled pages and see if they could use some cleanup/improvement, or look at stuff in the WP:Backlog for things to do. Don't focus on just reverting vandalism, Wikipedia still has a lot of opportunities for things you can do which do not require automated tools. Focus on building, expanding, and improving the encyclopedia instead of just reverting and maintaining it as is. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I would only use huggle for that sort of thing rather than using it for anything else. I think Wikipedia:Huggle/Manual only mentions vandalism. Basically, use your judgement and assume most other editors are trying to improve articles. For instance, if they remove a line of text, think why they might have removed it, or maybe even ask them. If they remove a large section of the page, that's usually a bit different.:) Even then, check they aren't removing vandalism or poor quality text themselves or removing slander. Having said that, I'm not an expert with huggle. Basically, just remember most of the edits are made by human beings and think how you feel yourself if someone reverts you or something or calls you 'unconstructive' or a vandal. If you disagree with someone's edit, have a word with them rather than templating them, or discuss it on the article's talk page. You were doing ok with Twinkle- ease into huggle slowly if you really feel you have to use it, but personally I'd do things by hand since you've been in trouble for using the tools, unless I was really confident a particular tool-using edit would be right. Optigan has a point too but if you want to focus on this area, which can be 'fun' sometimes, use your human judgement and err on the side of caution. Sticky Parkin 00:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Great edits Tohd:) Looking forward to more.:) Sticky Parkin 01:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)