User talk:Theroadislong/Archive 2

Welcoming your collaboration

Would you be so kind as to review the response to your edits on my talk page? I'm certainly no expert on the use of Wikipedia, and I would appreciate any advice you can offer on my usage so that I am not labeled a spammer or disruptive user. Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastsidetruman (talk • contribs) 19:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ALL of your edits so far have been to introduce links to "The Joy of Giving Something, Inc" why would I NOT think you are a spammer?Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need some substance behind your removals

Please take a look at my talk page with links to my issue on the External Links page. The links I am adding follow the guidelines for External Links to the T and things are explained there. Please also revert all the edits you made to take out my links unless you have pastable reasoning to why you're removing them thanks!.

Yes, don't recommend the page I just added for sppedy deletion. There are no copyright issues here. The link I used was created by the company I work for and there are no copyright violations whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSOgden (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop proposing the page on Robyn Griggs Lawrence is in violation of copyright rules. I work for Naturral Home magazine and its publisher. This page will not be delted and I'd appreciate it if you would stop posting comments.

Signed, RSOgden —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSOgden (talk • contribs) 22:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT created by copying and pasting from websites especially your own websites! Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We reserve the right to reprint and reuse anything that we have written on any of our Webs sites, as WE ourselves have copyrighted it. I wrote the copy on the Web site that is being "copied and pasted" in the first place, why should I have to rewrite it for Wikipedia? That makes no sense! Stop attacking the intergrity of this page. RSOgdenRSOgden (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dusie

I removed your speedy deletion tag from the article because DB-A7 criteria is that the article does not assert notability, not that it has none. The article clearly asserts notability with several links to 3rd party independant reviews of the subject. If you wish to PROD or AfD the article, I am not opposed, I just do not feel the article meets A7. Happy Editting!--TParis00ap (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have identified them as vandalism on precisely that premise: over-linking. The user has a history of over-linking (and subsequent warnings). Despite some of the links possibly being useful, there have been links included to 'woolen': I don't think that sort of thing exactly enhances the article. Given that some of the links are entirely redundant, and others questionable at the least, I have reverted the entire thing.

Cheers,

Fortnum (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood...Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliated Computer Services

Just a minor note, but I wanted to express my thanks for your work to keep the ACS article within proper WP bounds. I just happened across the edit history for the article a moment ago (a help-desk query by the firm's employee had caught my interest) and I wanted to note my appreciation for your participation in the matter. best regards, Ohiostandard (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Henmor (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC) about page Ani Batikian please tell me what i should do? and if i have done something wrong please tell me and i will try to correct it as well as i can. Sincerely Yours! Henmor (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henmor (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC) This is a Biography of Ani Batikian thats why i added. what i should do i must write my self? please tell me! Thank you![reply]

You cannot just copy material into wikipedia, as you did with the Ani Batikian article. The copyright of this is owned by someone else, and wikipedia is very strict about copyright. You can use your own words to write something that uses the ideas in this text, and then quote it as a source. Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henmor (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I deleted that COPY PASTE... is it ok? but it was not a copy paste :( please be less strict and try to help me. PLEASE![reply]

I had a e-mail.contact with owner of that site, what i should ask him about copyright?

Speedy deletion declined: Pradeep Navelkar

I removed your speedy deletion tag from the article Pradeep Navelkar because criterion WP:A7 is for articles that do not assert significance, not for articles that have no notability. The article asserts that the person in question was a member of the Indian national hockey team, which is significant. Please read or re-read WP:A7. — Sebastian 00:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhoola Pakistani

Bhoola Pakistani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is, in my opinion, trying very hard to contribute. While his edits to inventory are not good; according to him, they were made in good faith, not as vandalism. Please be as patient and helpful to him as you can be. Fred Talk 12:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

on criteria

watch the the discussion page please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdboeck (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Theroadislong. You have new messages at Frehley's talk page.
Message added 22:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Fre h ley 22:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo

Question on Romeo. If we remove the peacock language satisfactorily, should the COI notice come off? Or does it stay forever? Your thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House Church

Question on HouseChurch. Please define "VERY poor quality external link" —Preceding [[Hairlesshead (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)]] comment added by Hairlesshead (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

A link that adds NOTHING to our understanding of the subject...Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually click the link? You have to chose a language. There are hundreds of pages dealing with house church and biblical principles relating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairlesshead (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did and in particular I noticed this..."If you have been blessed by the material on this site

and would like to contribute to TheEarlyChurch.com please click the link below.All funds received will be used exclusively for missions and the hosting of this site." I question your motives for adding the link/ Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction is NOT vandalism

I did not vandalize anything! Mine was a correction, I just talked with an administrator about it, and he recognised that I am in right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankVonPedro (talk • contribs) 18:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You changed a referenced population figure of 64,303,000 to 60,303,000... that looks like vandalism to me unless you have a reference for the figure and no administrator has recognised that you are right as far as I can see?Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the number because It was wrong! It is IMPOSSIBLE that in France there are 64 million French on a total population of 65! I don't konw the exact the number but it is about 60 million, not 64! This isn't vandalism, if you look at my talk page, the first comment was from an administrator who apologized with me for the same problem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankVonPedro (talk • contribs) 18:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference states 64,303,000 where is your reference that says otherwise? Wikipedia relies on references.Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HERE ONE: As of 2006, the French national institute of statistics INSEE estimated that 4.9 million foreign-born immigrants live in France (8% of the country's population)

If you don't konw in every country there are immigrants! Germany has got 7 million of immigrants, France not so much but at least 5 million NOW! More, even if France had 64 million French, totally impossible, the total number reach 105 million! not 130! that number is FALSE! Correct it, because now you threaten me without a logical reason! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankVonPedro (talk • contribs) 19:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REMOVE the warning! I explained you the situation, I am right! NOW remove, and correct it for me. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankVonPedro (talk • contribs) 16:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable references for the population figures you want to change.Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me??? I just done! Anyway: The reliable source, that you want, is the same article! There is in the same article the right number! But at the end someone did an error........the right numbers (140 Italian people and 100 French people) there are already in the article, you only have to add all numbers IN THE SAME article.....I only corrected it, I don't have to cite any source because I am not doing a MODIFICATION but only A CORRECTION! (study math) And REMOVE THE WARNING!

Sorry but I don't want to be misunderstood: I don't want to threat anyone! First, You threatened me because of my corrections. Please believe me, I am not against you, but against false facts. I hope that there will not be another problem between us. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankVonPedro (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise you've probably had enough of this, but I've just reverted the same edit by an IP. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 22:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of NUDE SKINCARE

Hi Teapotgeorge,

Sorry for my late reply, I'm new to Wikipedia and am trying to put up a piece on Nude Skincare. On the 1st of October, you tagged the piece I put up to be be deleted. Please could you explain why and what I need to do to get this piece up. Ali Hewson is on Wikipedia and is linked to Nude Skincare, any help you can give I appreciate. Thanks for your time and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steph 270 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I tagged it because it had no references and was written in a promotional tone? I don't really recall. Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of John DeFries

Please read comments in new articles before going ballistic and requesting deletion: how do you think articles get written? Thanks to the annoyance fo your notice I have now lost 2 paragraphs of actual content —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim bates (talk • contribs) 16:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies...all good wishes Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed items and undid items from the article issues box

Greetings Teapotgeorge, I wanted to understand how the verbiage that was added to the Lead Section of the article that I created, was considered (POV)? I referenced the article on poet Ntozake Shange "A self-proclaimed black feminist", concerning the wording that I added ie: "A self-acknowledged student to creative activism" Also, my second question is, how do I rectify the items addressed in the 'Article Issues' box on the article page? I thank you in advance for your reply and or guidanceMatrixEditor (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Brian Calfano

Hello Teapotgeorge, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Brian Calfano - a page you tagged - because: PROF and host on station with an article is probably an assertion of notability enough for A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Ged UK 13:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined Royal Norfolk and Suffolk Yacht Club

Material was actually a copy of another Wikipedia page - New York Yacht Club. I am assuming he is using this as a template. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

calm down

I don't think that is a nomination anymore if you already delete the page. In spite of all, I put the hangon template on the top of the page like you adwised. --SM (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A3

I don't think we are meant to use A3 just after creation. Anyway AnimalsandEarth.com looks like an A7. Polargeo (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trout

Regarding Mongolian Terror Trout, I declined the CSD as it was not an obvious hoax, but...I'm not convinced it's a real topic either. Perhaps we can contact the creator of the article and see what the intentions are. WP:PROD and WP:AFD may be viable options. Frank | talk 23:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be some mentions on Google but not sure it deserves an article yet? Teapotgeorge^Talk 23:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We may need to be a community discussion on the matter. I just wanted you to know that by declining the CSD nomination, I wasn't giving an opinion on whether or not the article should exist. I was merely pointing out that it didn't meet the G3 criteria. Frank | talk 23:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Bear (film)

Hello Teapotgeorge, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Bear (film) - a page you tagged - because: Not unambiguously promotional. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psichogios Publications

I added reliable sources like TA NEA which is the largest Greek newspaper as well as some others. I also edited the profile because I was wrong...the company does not publish educational materials. I don't understand why you still put the "sources" tag on it again. Please let me know.

Thank you, (HarisHarossi (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't add the sources tag, I added the notability tag and as you have a clear conflict of interest it is probably best to let others decide to remove maintenance templates. Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I am not affiliated with that company. I just love their books and there was no page for them. If I was affiliated I would have known that they don't publish educational books, or that they don't sell through bookclubs :) I am new to wikipedia and in the beginning the article did not have any sources, but now I updated it and it should be ok.
Thank you for your message!
(HarisHarossi (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Issues you raised

Regarding the tag you put in the recently created Green Car Congress, I kindly request that you take another look, now that I just finished what I intended to be the lead for a stub. Regarding notability I included ten organizations that have GCC as an external resource, and here at Wikipedia GCC has been frequently used as a RS. The section mission and goals I took as declared by GCC, as I believe each organization defines its own and there is no third party source to define it otherwise, but I feel comfortable if you think this section must go (be deleted). Please let me know if there is something else that can be done to improve this stub, and by the way, I do not have any relationship with this organization, as a Wiki editor I have use it a lot as a reference for articles related to clean and alternative fuels and cars, and as a transportation professional, I know this is a reliable and very updated source of information in this field (that is whay so many websites have it as an external source).-Mariordo (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and see you around.---Mariordo (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Theroadislong. You have new messages at Fabrictramp's talk page.
Message added 20:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International House of Prayer

What in your opinion can be removed and/or improved upon. Is there wording that can be changed? just trying to figure out what is being expected.Travisharger 22:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs)

The article has a general unencyclopedic promotional feel to it. The "Publications" section should go they are self published and therefore hardly notable. The "Similar Ministries" section fails verification or is unreferenced. "Popular Culture & Random" facts section is desperately unencyclopedic. The external links section is extensive and directory like Wikipedia is NOT a directory. The list of references appears random and not entirely relevant. Teapotgeorge^Talk 23:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of the changes you made recently...I think it was a good job, but didn't fully understand the removal of the ministries of IHOP...I think that to be valuable information to a reader...I would personally be up for cutting it down..and condensing it...but believe think that the information is important and should remain in some form....Also I noticed some of the citations are messed up..i'll work on fixing those, i agree with the removal of some of them.....also you make reference to the site being promotional...but i would think that would mean removing information...many sites on wiki Examples: Simpsons, Bon Jovi, Dan Brown, Salvation Army, are filled with information but dont get flagged as promotional....is it because its a religious organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travisharger (talk • contribs) 02:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses unencyclopedic language which has been improved by one editor but reverted again by you. You have been asked to stand back and let others improve the article. The intricate ministry details can all be found on the IHOP website and seem out of place in an encyclopedia.Teapotgeorge^Talk 10:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated that i'm ok with changing wording..and i haven't interfered with that, but the article doesn't have to be limited to a few sentences to be encyclopedic....many people are searching for information about this organization and it should be found in this article, if Hannah Montana gets intricate details, i don't see why this article cant have basic information made public. You mention they can be found on their site, but [User talk:SuaveArt] had removed much information that isn't on their site. Also think that much of the Criticism Section should be left for users to find. Especially information about Mike's Association with the Kansas City Prophets. Why are other articles allowed to be filled with information yet this one has to be cut down to a couple lines? If its citations, wording, organization, neutrality that needs to be fixed we can talk about fixing that...but I dont see any reason that the majority of the information cant stay in some form.Travisharger 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see [1] You are welcome to add more details BUT it needs to be referenced to reliable third party sources NOT the IHOP website...and not in endless list format. Cheers Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JetPhotos.net

Re JetPhotos.net - thanks for the warning notices, there are references on there from other websites, including from Airliners.net. The site is very popular as a Google search shows, a search for "jetphotos.net" returns more than 550,000 results. User:noelmg —Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

In which case you will have no problems finding many reliable third-party publications for references. Cheers Teapotgeorge^Talk 23:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provided reference from Popular Mechanics magazine. However now you have added "Advertisement". Please could you offer guidance on where it looks like an advertisement and I will rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelmg (talk • contribs) 23:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The features section looks to me more like promotion of the website rather than neutral encyclopedic content but I may be wrong?Teapotgeorge^Talk 23:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I have removed the breakdown and provided a little less detail for this area - it is not intended as an advertisement. I have also modified the sister sites section to remove the link to railpictures.net as it is maybe not relevant to the article in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelmg (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onething conference

Was already on it. Oh Well, one tends to soldier on Annette46 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing prod tags

Hi just a quick note. You replaced the {{prod}} tag on the page The Unaware Ghost after it was removed by Sophia2009 and warned the user against this on their talk page. You may want to read WP:CONTESTED. The blanking has to be seen as contesting the proposed deletion and the article is now listed for deletion on AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unaware Ghost).--blue520 17:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies but as her edit changed no other content in the article I didn't see it as contesting it, but simply removing a maintenance template. Cheers for the heads up. Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TeaPot, I am still getting the message that my Page is not Notable. Is it just a case of needing to add more secondary sourced information?Stephen0001--84.51.241.8 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have added a list of sources but you haven't added anything more to the article? Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Teapot George, I am having a nightmare trying to set up the page for my company in the proper way. I must be terrible at this because I just can't wrap my head around the correct way to get the information I "know" into a way suitable for an encyclopedia! Please help.--Dbix15 (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)David[reply]

IT is strongly advised that you NOT write about your own company if it is really notable someone else will do it!Teapotgeorge^Talk 10:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teapot George, I am struggling to refernce the start of my page. Can you advise if as it currently stands is acceptable? - Stephen0001

Thanks TeapotGeorge for correcting the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torbjorn_Sassersson. Let me know if possible to take away the two warning texts on the page. I started a Talk page about the "TS page". Sassersson (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misstinkafairy (talk • contribs) 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE Colette Hume the article was a stub - the see also/ ref links were indication of notability while the stub was expanded. The article was inregards to a notable person (in this case Wales/ Education Correspondent for BBC News/ BBC Wales news) and seems to ahev been deleted soemwhat hastily before I had any oppurtunity to put a hang on tag into the page or argue the case for the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misstinkafairy (talk • contribs) 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Teapot George - this is regarding Concentrate Design page. I did re-add them as they disappeared and I thought i had done something wrong! Sorry to annoy you, it was a newbies error. I wont add them in again - promise. let me know if there is anything else i will be expelled for and i will fix! jemsta1979 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemsta1979 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teapot George, yesterday I provided comments on my talk page in response to your comments from the past week. When could you get back to me? Best, Jemsta1979 ([[User talk:jemsta1979|talk] —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC).

Teapotgeorge [Re New College Glasgow article]. Sorry, this was my first article. The information which I cut and pasted was not copywrite material. However I did not realise it was unacceptable to cut and past a paragraph from another website. It was my intention to use this as a starting point to edit and improve. I have now deleted all the cut and paste material and written it in my own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wastededucation (talk • contribs) 12:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re FreakingNews article. I edited it to fit the neutrality policy. Removed all the "opinion parts", and left only the facts supported by the stated references. Would you please take a look at it now and tell whether you think it meets the neutrality policy, or suggest what further changes need to be done to comply. Thank you. Golunov (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removed coi template article looks neutral now. Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Philip Mould entry, I removed inaccurate information. What was written on the Wikipedia site was not correct. I understand your comments that I have a conflict of interest but at the same time I am in a position to know what is fact and what is fiction/gossip/untruth. Many thanks Emmahenderson (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Emma Henderson[reply]

Wikipedia relies on verifiable references though. Teapotgeorge^Talk 12:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Morley's Fried Chicken

Hi there, Just contesting your deletion of morley's fried chicken on grounds that is promotional - the article was meant as a Encyclopedic description of a company that has become something of a cultural phenomenon in South East London (see http://www.flickr.com/groups/morleys/ for what I mean.) I certainly have no vested interest in promoting the company - I'm just a South Londoner who finds it a curiosity worth recording. Thanks

Hello I nominated the article for deletion but it was deleted by User:StephenBuxton Cheers Teapotgeorge^Talk 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding hyperlinks

Dear teapotgeorge

I have just received a message from you warning against vandalising pages by adding hyperlinks. I would just like to explain that I am new to wikipedia with little understanding of any guidelines. I am the press officer for Eastside Educational Trust, a children's charity and youth arts provider in London that works to introduce young people to the arts and offers free workshops in schools and at our base in East London. While the workshops on offer do provide young people with amazing opportunities, people do not always know what Eastside does. We are lucky to have a number of celebrity patrons who are listed on our website. I was simply ensuring where we are mentioned on their wikipedia pages, we are linked to our name so anyone interested in the charities their favourite celebrity supports could learn what that charity does.JVilkhu (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC) I did not realise this was vandalism in anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JVilkhu (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletions

Hi TeaPotGeorge, I just wanted to say sorry for the two posts. they should be deleted immediately. I will work on writing new content so it is fitting with in guidlines.

thanks, so sorry for the trouble

Hz1234 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bodmin Community Radio

Can you please elaborate what needs doing for the BCR article to avoid speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotonfc4life (talk • contribs) 12:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Fine Arts Museum

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Taipei Fine Arts Museum do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TeapotgeorgeTalk 12:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Teapot,

You just elimminated for the second time all external links to the Taipei Biennial, the most important exhibition of the museum in question, as well as a link to a letter written by the local art community which asked for reform of the Taipei Biennial.

According to wikipedia "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided"

To me it would appear essential that any claims would be backed up by verifiable sources, and that the reader should be able to see for himself what the subject(s) in question have to say; you just eliminated these. Could you kindly advise.

best Li Yue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix alias Li Yue (talk • contribs) 11:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message for you

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

Rosen

FYI, I have no incentive to promote Rosen Publishing. If people want to delete a stub, just because it's a stub of a company, so be it. Maurreen (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re The Quill

I have just indefinitely blocked the above editor, for disruption relating to Cornish subject articles. While reviewing their contributions I noted you had reverted them, claiming them to be a banned editor - are you referring to my indef block, or are you aware that they are a previously banned editor? Thanks LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for incorrect wording, I did of course mean blocked not banned. Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation, I was afraid I might have prematurely closed out an SPI investigation or something. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gearslutz

Yo, George. You wanna delete that article? Let me know. Thx. Jrod2 (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: The World's Healthiest Foods

Hello Teapotgeorge. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The World's Healthiest Foods, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Ged UK 16:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: George Mateljan

Hello Teapotgeorge. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of George Mateljan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Writing a 'best selling' book is a credible assertion of notability, sufficient for A7, even if the book doesn't turn out to be notable enough. PROD or take to AfD (perhaps with the book). Thank you. Ged UK 16:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glass and user Ebe123

Hi Teapotgeorge, please have second look at the edits of Ebe123 to the glass article. I think if you assume good faith you see that the new user Ebe123 tried to add things which he thought are important. He lacks the experience to do it in proper way, but to call it vandalism is alittle bit harsh. Thanks! --Stone (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contingency

Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your time.--Buster7 (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I do not know what you are talking about. I am not involved in any edit war, the page you mentioned I have started a discussion. Please do not send me pointless and time-wasting messages thankyou. 82.1.157.16 (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Would you start the AFD process for Educational Demonstration and Promotional Demonstration? The creator just doesn't seem to get the idea that the articles are not up to standard. 67.180.84.239 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that this is a quite subtle set of spam for the media corporation that supplies products with both these names. The creator of those articles seems to be wise to the ways if Wikipedia, understands the use of templates such as {{vandal}} though applies them imperfectly, and knows far too much about the way to conceal things to be anything other than a PR account. Sock or meat puppetry springs to mind, but the edit pattern gives no obvious clues. To me those two articles and the other edits made by this user lead me to suspect WP:COATRACK editing un a reasonably subtle form. The articles are clever because they purport to be real articles, but they appear to try to create notability for the terms instead of reporting the terms as notable and/or verifiable.

I am tempted to be bold and rip those (to me) spammy links out of the articles, or at least to flag them soehow as spam links, ~~but I can't find the right template to do this~~. Any ideas? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! {{Spam link}} Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they have both been deleted already! cheersTeapotgeorge^Talk 15:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoji Ikeda Image

The image of Ryoji Ikeda taken by Shervinafshar was removed as they do not have a licence to use or disseminate this image.

Formaartsandmedia (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the image you will see that it IS licensed... "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license."Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The person uploading the picture does not have permission to use the image, nor do they have the right to make it available via CC. We are pursuing the user directly in regards to this. Please do not re-upload this image.

Formaartsandmedia (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations, notability have now been added to the Mark Boardman page from several users including links to the Locate tv site , references from the Guardian paper on Mark and also quotes from independant sites regarding the celebrity blogger / TV presenter & film journalist. I did edit the page for deletion to show the new facts, this is not vandaliam though simply making a case for it to stay from Melody —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.127.194 (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism you edited other peoples comments rather than making your own case and you removed the template from the article which was also vandalism. Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact me and keep the Mark Boardman page, it wsa marked for speedy deletion though I want to update it. Just search for me online. I have many links on wiki and now am looking to start my own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebritypresenter (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teapot, please check out this page for the external links talk about MyFDB's links on here before you remove edits, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.113.130.2 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I just checked it out. Still looks like spamming to me and others obviously agree.Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to remove things you need to have reasoning, please point out WHY my links are against a piece of the External Links guidelines to justify this. There are plenty of admins out there that just remove things without doing any research as to why. That makes wikipedia less of itself and more of people with opinions with more power shutting down great information. I'm asking you to do you job here thoroughly.

I am not an "admin"...Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About editwar

Thanks your for bringing this to my attention, I have provided valid sources confirm what i wrote yet it was being deleted. I have also put the wording up for discussion on the talk page where others have suggested i use that word instead of another. Now that ive done that its being replaced even with the sources confirming.

Thank You Buffalo Buffaloxoldiar (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Thanks for your suggestions but you can put in "cultural icon" cause i fear if i do that right now i could be blocked even though i will provide valid sources, he seems to be deleting whatever you put even when its validated, if it wasnt thats understandable but it is as reuired by wikipedia.

Thx teapotgeorgeBuffaloxoldiar (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Early Wynn Salter

Hello Teapotgeorge. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Early Wynn Salter, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is being considered to deletion under the Articles for deletion process. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Stair and Takesji Yasuda

These two sculptors have a lack of references. Clearly these people are less notable than other certain artists judging from the lack of references and their short lengths. You ought to add more references if these articles are not to be deleted. DMJohnston (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern, they are both clearly notable potters however, though the articles may be short. I've tagged one for references. cheers Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:YoungDMusic

While I'm not convinced that the user page is spam, I'm also not quite sure what he's up to with it. However, I did just remove some categories from the page that are for articles only (e.g., Category:Living people). I'm keeping an eye on both accounts, YoungDMusic (talk · contribs) and Young D Soulja (talk · contribs), to see what they're up to. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Cookers

We are the only national and international authorised renovators of Aga cookers and as such we feel we have the right to put this link to our site on Wikipedia. As a director of the company I ask you to allow this. As you can see reference is already made in the main text to the fact that refurbished models are available. The link is a public service just as the link to our main AGA site is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iannorman (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have no "right" to a link for your own website! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of your own business or personal interests, places you in a conflict of interest.

If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions on the article talk page.Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about this at WP:EAR#Aga Twyford. Iannorman has also posted at the article talk page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. George's School, Harpenden

Hi George, a quick question regarding this revert. The user actually added a link in his summary, but even though it is a 403 forbidden i tend to believe him edit. An enrollment of 9002 is almost certainly vandalism (Old edits showed just 1300 students), and link such as this one: "Coeducational|Female" is of course nonsense. I would revert this myself, but before doing so: Is there any special reason for this revert? Perhaps a known long term vandal? Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are probably right and I have reverted myself cheers. Teapotgeorge^Talk 22:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Theroadislong. You have new messages at Talk:School Improvement Grant.
Message added 21:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Careful

You scolded some people working directly for the WMF. DS (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Wright (Cyclo-cross)

Hi there please can you remove 'clean up' advisors- subject is 100& genuine & links have been fixed or removed. thanks.

Elite Model Management

Just out of curiosity, what do you think among the lists (or maybe an entire list?) needs clean-up/removal? Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that certainly the list of countries could go...maybe the list of models needs it's own article? Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Betjeman

Hi there, you recently removed my addition to the John Betjeman article regarding his last hours on earth. Just wondering why this was?

kind regards,

Maureen

You wrote "Shortly prior to his death, Betjeman kicked his wife, Lady Elizabeth Gazumer square in the nuts." which was plainly vandalism. Teapotgeorge^Talk 09:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Luke Wilkins

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Luke Wilkins. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Wilkins. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

: I can assure you I am not concentrating my efforts on you, as a glance at my edit history will show. I may be guilty of biting the newbies for which I apologize. However your edits have been problematic in that you have copied and pasted copyrighted content, removed maintenance templates without explanation, uploaded images with inappropriate license details and blanked sections of an article talk page, [you CAN remove content from your own talk page].Cheers Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly don't think you've been particluraly supportive. You've been extremely bullish in your comments, discouraging and unhelpful. As stated, I am genuinely trying to improve the page without coi or motive, but you're simply not giving me a chance - with anything. The comments that are left on the article page are no longer relevant as I have now removed about 80% of the article - I would still like to remove them as they now make no sense. I'm not sure I'll continue with editing at all if this is the encouragement I get, which I'm sure is not the intention of the site's existence. Have you considered that you could help me write/edit this article instead of unconstructively criticising it?

Buckston (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC) I also agree with this amazing person. I think that you could be much more constructive in your deletions. Please reply to me, and don't just delete this message and run away. Thank you. Blakey19962 (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up.Teapotgeorge^Talk 12:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I think that Teapotgeorge has been very restrained in his handling of this. For example, on the issue of removing maintenance tags, he starts with a template saying "It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates..." Since Buckston had made an edit which did nothing except for removing a maintenance template this was really bending over backwards to be nice about it, giving the benefit of the doubt where some people might have thought there was no doubt. When Buckstone does exactly the same again does Teapotgeorge come down much more firmly, with accusations of vandalism? No, but instead we see a polite request not to remove such templates without resolving the issues. Similar remrks apply to Teapotgeorge's other contributions. If Buckstone thinks this is "extremely bullish" then I find it surprising. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional edit

Hi there. Just wondered why you had removed the link to flood codes information. I can see that if this was a product for sale that it would be outright promotion, which is fair enough, but this actually provides some really good information on the flooding codes. Buckston (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to me undoing this? Buckston (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a link to http://apps.sepa.org.uk/Floodwarnings/default.aspx and 15 other external links in the body of the article! Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Didn't realise this was not good. I was just trying to make the page more interesting and relevant with links to specific areas. However, I can remove the links if it's causing too many problems. :-) Although it's still a work in progress, I was also asking for any other ways I can improve the article, if you have ideas? Buckston (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove excess external links

I see your point here and understand what you are getting at. However, there are quite a few organisations that would be genuinely useful in the context of the article. How about cutting the list down rather than a blanket delete? Buckston (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

: I removed the following external links. Wikipedia is not a directory and the links don't appear to me to provide any more information about the articles subject. TeapotgeorgeTalk 13:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Scotland's Environment and Rural Services' (SEARS) web portal Animal Health website Cairngorms NP website Crofters Commission website Deer Commission Scotland website Forestry Commission Scotland website Loch Lomond and Trossachs NP website SGRPID website Scottish Natural Heritage website

I see. They are, in fact, all partners which form the SEARS family of agency partners which all serve to protect Scotland's environment. However, I can understand that some may not appear to be immediately relevant. Certainly I think that SEARS and Scottish Natural Heritage should stay? What do you think? Buckston (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK cheers Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

Hi there, Can you tell me how I use the same reference number several times within an article's copy? Thanks Buckston (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it and it works great. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the beginners guide. Really appreciating your help. Many thanks. Buckston (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your quicker than me I was just working it out!Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I'm learning, slowly! I'm looking at re-sizing images too. Buckston (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stub re-assessment for importance and class

Hi there, Can you give me some advice about how I get the SEPA article re-assessed for various categories. I'm a bit confused about this whole area to be honest. Thanks. BTW - how's the article looking now? Any further comments?Buckston (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I know nothing about assessing articles. The article as it stands draws VERY heavily on one primary source namely the SEPA website and as such looks a bit too promotional/advert in content and as a SPA editor you might appear to have a conflict of interest.Teapotgeorge^Talk 12:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about the stubs, thanks anyway. I've noted your comments about primary sources - I'll see what I can do about sourcing from elsewhere, although I had hoped that the references from newspapers, Scottish Government etc might have been diverse enough - perhaps just not enough of them though. That's not to say I'm disagreeing! Buckston (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ceramics

What is the name of the page that I am duplicated? TIA --Aleksa Lukic (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ceramic engineering Teapotgeorge^Talk 11:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello & Thank you

Thank you for pointing out the conflict of interest. It is that I am doing UAE Exchange as it is known to me. I am interested in the activities of such firms and I am looking at similar companies which I can contribute in wikipedia. Then again sorry for not commenting in the comment box as I just missed it. Ashok Cherian Koshy (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NetRegs

Hi there, Oh dear, looks like we are at odds again, but I'm really trying to do things properly and appreciate you help. I've posted some reasoning behind the disambiguation page and you can see what I'm trying to achieve there. There is definately a distinction to be made there but I've perhaps not chosen the right way to classify it. Let me know how I could go about achieving the same but maybe using a different method. I also know that you use capitalisation ion your comments for emphasis but I promise that I am reading and understand what you are saying without shouting. :-) Sorry to be petty. Buckston (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding to disambiguate

Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this situation there must be a way for the reader to navigate quickly from the page that appears on hitting "Go" to any of the other possible desired articles. Buckston (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a disambiguation page... James it's for when you are searching a particular word and there is more than one article that it could refer to, as far as I understand it...you could ask at the help desk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk cheers Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Thanks for asking about the disambiguation page. I think I understand now. Quite difficult to get to grips with this but I'm persevering! Ok, i'll look up how to create a stub next I guess? This appears to be how it should be classified. I'll do my best to find the info for myself but any pointers you have in the meantime would be great. Thanks. Buckston (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the stub template to NetRegs for you. CheersTeapotgeorge^Talk 22:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the stub. Can you have a look at Floodline page too - I've suggested this should be a stub too. Is this corect and have I edited it correctly for this? I've tried to follow the approach for NetRegs. Thanks again for keeping a watchful eye and helping out with this. :-) Buckston (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Greetings Teapotgeorge - I've just seen you had slapped a speedy delete tag on Colonel Andy O'Meara. The editor has since re-created the article and written "under construction" on it which I converted into an underconstruction tag. On visiting the editor's talk page I saw your previous note. Ball is in your court. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. But a quick google suggests that the article subject might just pass notability.--Technopat (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His old man... --Technopat (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as well.--Technopat (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rockthesocks

Thank you for tagging the above article for speedy deletion. I thought I'd just drop you a quick line as I have deleted the article, but under WP:CSD#G11 as it was a promotional article, rather than A7 (the article was created by a user with the same name—which I have blocked as well—and also created Rockthesocks.com so it was obviously promotional). I'm not saying that A7 was wrong per se, just that given the circumstances I felt that G11 was more appropriate. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion tag on Misplaced Articles for Creation Submission

Hi Theroadislong, according to the edit history you tagged a article , Rachel Pally, for deletion. This article was also tagged with:

{{AFC submission|||ts=dated and time|u=Username|ns=0}}

Articles tagged with this tag are Article for Creation submissions. If the article is in mainspace it should be moved to

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Articlename and the redirect should be tagged for deletion. The creator should then be informed of the move. The article tagged for deletion has been moved to the Article for Creation space and the deletion tag has been removed. Wikipedia may lose several misplaced submissions a month because they were misplaced and tagged for deletion for not being formatted or written correctly. Misplaced submissions are automatically tagged with with a misplaced Articles for Creation template. This template will appear at the top of the page. Before deleting articles please check for this template. Thank you. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Thompson House, Highland, NY

Please do not remove information that is essential to the historical importance of this house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenifergamber (talk • contribs) 12:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn how to input the info correctly I will help you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 12:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the Thompson Library illustrates the importance of the family's contribution to the Hudson Valley as opposed to John Thompson's work in New York City. Please restore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenifergamber (talk • contribs) 13:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be added to the article about John Thompson (banker) then NOT the article about his house surely?Teapotgeorge^Talk 13:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It establishes the historical value of house to the Hudson Valley.

Would you help me upload a photograph of the house? I hold the copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenifergamber (talk • contribs) 13:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page will help [2] I can add it to the article as soon as you have uploaded it. Be sure to state the relevant license or it will be deleted. Teapotgeorge^Talk 13:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an autoconfirmed user yet, so do not have upload privileges —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenifergamber (talk • contribs) 13:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to have edited for more than 4 days... you are still not signing your posts with 4 tildes cheers Teapotgeorge^Talk 13:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice please

Hi there,

Just wondered at what point the 'orphan' template could be removed from the NetRegs and Floodline pages? There are categories and pages now linked. Are there enough to justify removal now do you think? Thanks Buckston (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the orphan tag from NetRegs for you. The Floodline article is still an orphan with no pages linking to it? cheers Teapotgeorge^Talk 13:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I thought there were a few but I'll try to work on the suggested links to floodline. Buckston (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my lasst one did. Jenifergamber (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Cut

Yes, I think Deep Cut (play) would be the most appropriate destination. DDM1 (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't wanna

But I don't wanna use the sandbox. I wanna edit and vandalize pages.--TheReturnOfMe (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I hope this message finds its way. I have struggled with the layout in wikipedia and after a great deal of dead ends and useless help search results, I've found this page. Could you please tell me how to create references and/or tell me where I can find that kind of information? I had recently made some additions to the tea bag page and got shot down. I also want to know if the other user that edited me is correct that I should remove "junk" information?

Now I see that I'm going to have trouble signing this thing so I'll sign here in the body of the letter. -PiggPott —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiggPott (talk • contribs) 18:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help cont'd.

Thanks for the response. Of course, as I'm unfamiliar with all of this, I have responded only on my own "talk page"(?). I wish you'd read my response but I suppose I could cut and paste it here if you prefer. OR... in my response I ask if you'd rather I didn't bother you, and if you could point me to someone more official or appropriate for my questions. Thanks!PiggPott (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saggar fired pottery

"does this sound better?" It does! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.14.239 (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Deep Cut press releease

I'll acknowledge that the link provided is to a print publication, but searching around for supporting evidence is flushing out exactly the same wording from a great many sources, some attributed to Sherman Cymru, some not. That looks like a press release to me. The only other evidence that Revolution have the rights to the film is an eight month old reference to a director working with them on it.

Despite searching for any evidence of casting or resourcing of a film I'm not finding anything more recent than that.

I would prefer to caveat the point about Revolution having an option on the play given the limited evidence available.

ALR (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SEPA removal tag

I did not post the chunks of text that are (correctly) due to be removed. Please remove the tag from my talk page or explain. Fenton Robb (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, I edited at different times, but all details were correct.

--86.129.250.236 (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about the Sebastian Coe article where you changed Conservative party to Labour party. Looked like vandalism to me.Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puis-je demander de quelle manière toutes les informations n'étaient pas correctes et précises articles qui ont été 'vandalisé'?

May I ask in what way all information was not correct and specific articles which were 'vandalised'?

--86.129.250.236 (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest you seem like a Conservative to me, am I right?.

86.129.250.236 (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insult me!! ; ( Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, your not a Conservative then???

Well what do you expect me to say if you have a teapot (traditional Conservative) George (King's name) posh Conservative rich people.

You must be Labour then!!!

-- 86.129.250.236 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this irony

...or am I just up too late? HalfShadow 07:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't understand the question... I guess I'm up too early. Teapotgeorge^Talk 07:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're teapotgeorge and you reverted vandalism to teapot and warned the guy... HalfShadow 07:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

: ) Teapotgeorge^Talk 07:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the advice. I totally forgot to add a reason why I deleted that section of the article. Thank you for reminding me.

Next time I will be more careful. --Suplemental (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wellingborough

The Wellingborough article that you have contributed to is now very near closure of its GA review. If there are any last minute improvements you can make to address the reviewer's comments at Talk:Wellingborough/GA1, please feel free to be bold and make your contribs. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion, GlocalProject, vandalism

Hi! I've noticed you reverted this revision and identified it as vandalism. As far i know, non-creators of an article are allowed to remove speedy deletion templates, according to WP:CSD. Am i correct? Thank you! — Zhernovoi (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should provide an explanation in the edit summary though. Teapotgeorge^Talk 10:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up in WP:CSD and Template:Db-g11 and was unable to find a proof for it. I don't even know if it should be identified as vandalism, there is no reference to it in WP:VANDTYPES. Could you help me to understand this? Thanks! — Zhernovoi (talk)

David Leach speedy deletion nomination

Some officious know-nothing has nominated this page for speedy deletion on the grounds of the subject's non-notability. I am preparing for a number of shows over the next few weeks and won't be able to give it much attention. If you could add some references attesting Leach's importance I'd appreciate it. Marshall46 (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I reacted too quickly to the message left on my talk page. I'll strengthen the article later if no-one else is able to to do. Marshall46 (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do ; ) Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quick response. Brilliant! Marshall46 (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Kanos Music

I see you tagged User talk:Kanos Music for speedy deletion as spam, and I discovered it was also a copyright infringement. However, we do not delete user talk pages except under exceptional circumstances, such as serious defamation. I have removed the offending material from the page and left a note explaining why to the user. It would be possible to expunge the relevant edits from the page history, but it is unlikely to be necessary. If the user repeatedly reverts then I will be willing to think again, but failing that simple removal should be enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Benjamw

You recently reverted some linking by User:Benjamw. It came to my attention that he may be working for a WP:GLAM relevant institution. If you encounter similar situations in the future, including improper linking, etc. please refer the user to WP:GLAM as you will have read in the Signpost, recent collaboration with large cultural institutions is creating a new route for access to subject area experts and article improvement, see WP:GLAM/BM and WP:GLAM/SI. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up though I deleted the links because they were poor quality not because of any coi. cheersTeapotgeorge^Talk 13:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:LCOC1962

It's not quite shameless enough to block speedily. Keep an eye on it, but don't put the name up at UAA again, please. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by keeping an eye on it? They have recreated the article The Lincoln Club of Orange County three times now not sure how much more promotional it could be?Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tfchen

Im new to wikipedia and I'm really just trying to understand how everything really works, as you can see I've beenconstantly editing to get rid of some of the more self-promoting information on the page, but with every edit it still is not enough, would you mind giving me some advice or pointers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfchen (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CoverItLive

Thanks for the rapid resolution of the Speedy. First time in seven years I've ever started an article that was flagged for deletion - need to make my stubs clearer on the notability front, clearly! :-) Paul W (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical Watch

Hello. I've reverted the speedy you added to Chemical Watch, as it now appears to assert notability. Notability isn't yet clear per WP:WEB though, so this might need to prodded in a week or so. Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. Teapotgeorge^Talk 11:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

11:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Although one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view, we would like to remind you not to undo other people's edits, as you did to the page Jewellery, without explaining why in an edit summary. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Jewellery, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. (Huey45 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]