User talk:WWGB/Archive 3

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

Thanks for your edits to Peter Foster and Peter Foster (disambiguation). Kingcoconut and several anonymous editors have made frequent edits on the topic of Peter Foster, making it tricky for one person to keep an eye on developments. Your edits are much appreciated. Autarch (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your edit. The IP address in question resolves to an Australian ISP - looks like there might be a dispute over the content again. Autarch (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for removing the CSD tags from my articles. I guess I should have spent some more time on them before putting the first version up...Tiel123 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I added some references to Hajnal Ban. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hajnal Ban. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done WWGB (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Help please revert my last edit to the Santa Maria, Bulacan article! I can't revert it! Plis! Thanks! --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 03:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks!! --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 05:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I'll take a look. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OK well I just rolled back my last 50 edits. I did notice that my WikEd has changed the color of the text to blue as well as added a "use Ctrl-Click to open the current page". No idea if that's related to this or not. Thanks very much for the heads up. I'll get it worked out. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I turned WikEd off and now it's working just fine. But now I don't have WikEd. :-) I'll submit it as a bug and see if anyone else is having any problems. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining; I didn't know he died on 27 May. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

hi. thanks for catching my screwed up redirect (here) so quickly... i should remember to triple-check when i'm tired ;-) cheers! --Storkk (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It took me a minute to understand your user page. That's very creative of you! --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I looked at it, thought, "there's something not right about this," then decided it must be the spelling. :D SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd not to have a single photograph of him in the article. Most images are decorative, after all. The point is to make the article easier on the eye. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It was the nicest one I could find. We're somewhat limited because the image needs to be a free one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rowe. Will do. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think people would like it with Reagan in it, and he doesn't have anything to do with it, the hospital name notwithstanding. My guess is it would be reverted a lot, plus you can't see Jackson so well because it's not a close-up. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

~ mazca ^talk 08:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Gah! Trying to distinguish between vandalism and "things that you or your friends made up" is making my brain hurt. Should I withdraw AfD to allow the speedy deletion process run its course? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree infinity percent! My only guess is ...Wikipedia does not want to "offend" an editor by quickly telling them that the subject of their article (thing they made up) is unimportant, so it instead allows a 7-day discussion to determine whether or not what they have added is notable. I haven't messed around with speedy-tagging and AfD tagging lately, and I was just trying to remember if one would interfere or slow the progress of the other. Since my above post, I've suddenly remembered that I've seen AfDs closed early as a result of speedy deletes (if I do recall correctly). Here's to hoping the CSD policies change soon. Cheers! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi WWGB. I notice some of your entries to the List of Rugby league incidents were deleted, which I restored again. There seems to be a concerted effort to reduce the list, even though such incidents are continually in the headlines, and the newspapers themselves publish similar lists they've compiled themselves. I'm against the recent name change, which extends the name to be extraordinarily long, and inserts word "player" into the name, as an excuse to go through the list deleting incidents by coaches and other league entities (even though they are always present on-field and an essential component of the game). Anyway, the article needs to be watched before it gets too much smaller. Cheers, --Lester 09:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Lasting Tribute is not proof of death as anyone can register a tribute and anyone can add information. It is essentially a commercially-run wiki whose primary purpose is to sell questionable taste memorial gifts. It has no place on Wikipedia. If you think otherwise then please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. Thanks. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 15:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT CONTINUE TO REVERT. While there is a separate deletion discussion going on, she is not a celebrity and not worthy of inclusion in the page you are adding it to. If you continue to revert, it will be treated as vandalism. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Pffft! And your deletion is honorable is it, against WP:STATUSQUO? Btw, I'm not deaf, no need to shout either. WWGB (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

All you're doing is feeding the MSM's story about someone that's just not a celebrity. Why, I am not sure? Dr. Cash (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think she is not notable, and think the article will be deleted. But jumping the gun before the AfD debate is over is not the way to go. Articles (and listings) remain until the debate is over. That's just the way Wikipedia works. WWGB (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears that user:Michael Zinke/user:Michael93555 is back (or never left). If you have any insight into this user's history could you comment on a thread concerning him? WP:ANI#User:Will Beback (Administrator).   Will Beback  talk  19:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have been notified by email, but I thought it was worth my dropping in a note anywhoo, to let you know that Sydney Wikipedians are having a meetup this coming Tuesday, the 4th August. As you'll see on that page, we have two folk flying in from the Wikimedia Foundation who will be attending, and we have a great crowd of wiki types signed up to come along.

If you've never been to a meetup before, this wouldn't be a bad one to kick off with (we're all very friendly, interesting, and great looking folk ;-), and if you have, well come along again, why don't ya! If you've any questions you can flick the aussie mailing list an email on wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org aussie mailing list, or drop me a note on my talk page. Hope to see some of you there!

ps. If you've already signed up, and received an email, and a phone call, and a door knock, and are getting a bit frustrated with constant advances from enthusiastic australian wiki types, then I'm told you can print this message, and bring it along to use as a 'free beer' voucher, redeemable by our esteemed Vice-President of WMAU on the night...... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just logged onto Wikipedia, and discovered a note from you to say that my page on "Sompting Festival" is marked for urgent deletion. Unfortunately, it had already been deleted before I saw this message,

I do not understand the problem with this page. There is a very similar page for the Adur Festival, which is what gave me the idea to add this page in the first place!

The Sompting Festival is a very important part of the Sompting community. I would therefore be grateful if the page could be reinstated.

Regards Tim Clarke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timboclarke (talk • contribs) 11:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Collier_Township_shooting

Is this an article that should be deleted? If there is news about it in a few months, then maybe it can be re-created. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems to be an error of judgment on my part, but then again, it's early still and perhaps I shouldn't have gotten out of bed this morning. I'll fix that, sorry. ceranthor 11:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I please have a copy of the page as I want to see what my sister has done. Thanks Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help. Only an administrator can provide access to a deleted article. Regards, WWGB (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Dirty Dozen ( List of Scam to Avoid tax ) was of course a prime candidate for speedy deletion, but for future reference, copyvio was an inappropriate reason - all US Gov. publications are public domain. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The source you provided for Ruth Ford's death is good, but there's one thing that bothers me, we have another source that claims she was born in 1915, so one of the sources is not correct. What do you think? Kotiwalo (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

POKERdance ^talk/contribs 06:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your addition of a {{db-g10}} to Wolverhampton gangs. While the information is negative and unsourced, I don't believe it constitutes a direct attack or disparagement of any single entity, and so I don't believe it falls under the guidelines of WP:CSD#G10. If you still disagree, feel free to PROD or take to AfD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have taken your db-g3 tag off this, as I don't think it's vandalism or misinformation - there are enough Youtube-type Ghits to confirm that such a thing actually exists. There isn't really a speedy that covers it, but it's certainly not notable, and I have PRODded accordingly. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

While Don Grant died about a week ago, his death wasn't announced until this week. As I read the guidelines for the template involved, the 7-day limit runs from the date the template was added, not the date of death. I don't think it needs to stay on the full week, but it was up for only about 1 1/2 days. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm puzzled by your last edit. Just how was my edit vandalism?--James Bond (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for clearing that one up. I wasn't sure whether the two were related or not. I've now added (hopefully) the correct information to each article. I think it's something worth mentioning although I don't know whether the leader is the right place for it. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I had an interesting thing happen today. I was categorizing the death of Anna Belle Clement O'Brien, using Category:Accidental deaths from falls. Orlady, an editor who seems to be watching this article, undid this categorization and entered this for the reason: "[removed] category; she died AFTER a fall, but no source has said the fall caused the death". Well, this reasoning would create chaos with many other articles that have a Category:[Cause of death] when the death is caused from its complications thereof (Damn, I sound like a lawyer, which I'm not). I don't want to get into an edit war with this editor. What do you think? Ed (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, initially I created Category:New unreviewed articles as a cat added by the preload, but then saw people weren't removing that (not unexpectedly). The cat has been useful to track use of the wizard and provide ideas for improvement, so I thought converting it to a template (so deleting the template removes it from the cat) would be better. I've mentioned this at WT:WIZ2#New template and nobody commented - so please feel free to discuss there. Rd232 ^talk 12:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you object to my because it sounds like an aquarium (Fin Land). I will consider changing it in the next few weeks. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ijyut. WWGB (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that the article has been deleted. As far as I understand, you had tagged it for deletion. The tag was removed by the main contributor, and finally the article was deleted by User:Deb. I cannot find any discussion supporting the deletion. Could you help me understand what happened? I believe that the company should have an article, but if it has to be deleted, it has to go through a proper deletion process. Thanks. olivier (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I love the sign on your user page! It's great!

Say what do you think of Jeff Fenech and Kostya Tszyu?

Thanks and God bless! "Antonio Crazy Kangoroo (Aqui, Aqui!!) 11:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I am searching for the page on which it states that Wikipedia’s policy is to delete from the chronological Deaths pages the lines for all people deceased more than a month ago if they do not have personal biographical pages on Wikipedia. If such a policy has been formally established, please direct me to the page where I can read about it.

Your history of “contributions” establishes that you have been very, very busy making such deletions from the Deaths pages. If you are doing so in accordance with Wikipedia policy, then you and I have no argument. Aardvarkzz (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not policy but rather a consensus among the regular contributors to Recent deaths. See, for example, Talk:Deaths in 2009#Redlinks 2 and Talk:Deaths in 2008#Redlinks, part II. This convention is also acknowledged by a number of administrators, such as User:Rodhullandemu. A short background: the recent deaths pages were open to non-notable additions such as "Bill Smith, 95, American businessman". These was no formal way to challenge these additions, such as speedy deletion, proposed deletion or AfD because they were not articles. So the position was reached to allow entries to remain for one month to see if an article eventuated, and survived any deletion arguments, thereby establishing notability. If not, the entry was removed. Regards, WWGB (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedians need not be such elitists that we deny a single line to noteworthy deceased with news obituaries by major newspapers and websites. Having looked at some of your deletions in August for people who died before the 25th, I agree that some (you offer the example “Bill Smith, 95, American businessman”) ought to be deleted. There are decedents with Wikipedia pages (for example, Chanel, 21, American dachshund, world's oldest dog, died 29 August) that should be tagged for deletion.

However, the remaining redlink names in August are people who obviously qualify for personal pages, even if those pages have not been created a month after they died.

After considering each redlink name still displayed on 25 August, my offhand feeling was to recommend only Simon Thirgood (30 August) and Amos Hawley (31 August) for deletion, but I checked other sources and found a page for Hawley at Encyclopedia Britannica and an obituary for Thirgood in the London Independent, so I added those links to their respective names (as you have noticed) to make a case for their retention.

If someone has an obituary in any of the four London papers that originate their own news obituaries (Times, Independent, Guardian, Daily Telegraph) or the three major U.S. papers (LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post) of similar authority, the name should not be deleted, unless it is someone of strictly local interest. Also, a bio page at NNDB.com or Encyclopedia Britannica also should qualify the decedent for a permanent line in Wikipedia’s chronological Deaths. I do not insist that a bio page at IMDb necessarily qualifies a person for inclusion, but the number and quality of credits there should be taken into account. For example, actress-spokesmodel Joanne Jordan died 29 July 2009, but her death was not reported until 24 September, the day I looked for, and did not find, a Wikipedia page for her, so I entered a line for her, adding the notation “see LA Times 9/24/09 obits.” Within a day, you deleted that line with the terse comment “notability not established.” Please read her LA Times obit and look at her page on IMDb; it is unlikely you will argue that she is not notable.

Let us avoid argument and encourage discussion. We should err on the side of inclusion, not exclusion. Continue your scrutiny of the Recent Deaths, but for each redlink name you evaluate as not worthy of retention, please consider the following alternatives for that person’s line (1) Put the name between “< !--“ and “-- >” so it’s still there but doesn’t display. (2) Move the line to a page with a title such as Deaths in September 2009 deleted for lack of notability.

You, I and the others with interest in the necrology can be an ad hoc committee that decides whether a name remains excluded or should be restored. If a committee member makes a reasonable case for notability (as I have for Jordan, Thirgood and Hawley), that Wikipedian’s viewpoint should be respected.Aardvarkzz (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am somewhat bemused by your confrontational language ("elitists") and condescending tone ("Continue your scrutiny of the Recent Deaths") - like I need your permission! I am prepared to put that down to differences in our respective national cultures. I reiterate that I am not acting as a renegade editor, but applying a convention supported by other interested editors, as I have detailed above. The issues that you have raised would be better discussed at Talk:Deaths in 2009 rather than on a user talk page like this. I do not intend to comment further here, however, I will undertake not to delete further redlinks in the short term until you have had the opportunity to canvass further opinion. Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Today I reverted the vandalism of User:83.244.129.2 to the August Deaths page. You can read about it at that person’s discussion page.

Possibly we have reached agreement that the systematic deletion of redlink names has ended, permanently. I do not need to seek a consensus with you and those who allegedly condone your destructive edits.

Your redlink deletions appear to go back to 28 August 2006, It is my suggestion, not a demand, that you go back to each month for the past three years, and make an intelligent decision about whether to revert each of your previous deletions. If you decline to begin reverting a high percentage of your deletions very soon, I will take up the matter with Wikipedia administration as to who should do it. Respectfully, Aardvarkzz (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin, but not on behalf of all administrators, I have been asked for an opinion. Removing redlinks is not necessarily destructive, because there have to be some limits on how long we allow them to persist, and consensus seems to be established that if a redlinked recent death is not converted into an article within a month, it does not need to remain as a report. Since this is a wiki, anyone is subsequently allowed to create the article subject to the general notability guidelines. However, if you think this consensus is misguided, you are free to propose a change at Talk:Deaths in 2009, and I doubt that holding another editor to ransom over interpretation of existing consensus is helpful. I also believe that the admin community's view would be that admin intervention is unnecessary at this stage, because the process is Bold, Revert, Discuss, not Bold, Revert, Complain. There is also the option of seeking a third opinion as part of the dispute resolution processes. Rodhullandemu 17:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

... for creating an article on Reginald Golledge despite your previous opposition. I hope I'll find the time to expand the article a bit more in such a way that his contribution to human geography becomes clear to the reader. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi all,

It's meetup time again in Sydney - hopefully you'll be able to come along for friendly chat and drinks about all things wiki - topics will no doubt include the Chapter - perhaps with planning for the upcoming AGM, the general state of wiki-play, and the traditional candle lighting to encourage the mythical flagged-revisions extension to make its way on to the wiki. At this point, I usually mention that sitting wiki arbitrators are compelled to buy everyone a drink, but one of our number has taken a rather extreme route in avoiding this duty - if you have no idea what I'm talking about then you're probably busy writing and maintaining articles - but come along anyways on the 21st October, from 18.30 til late, to find out :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello WWGB, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Wantrapreneur has been removed. It was removed by Verbsmith with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Verbsmith before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 21:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Kingpin¹³ (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for helping to deal with the WoW/alternative just then :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous IP keeps removing the list from the original article and accusing me of vandalism. I was attempting to compromise by creating it as a separate linked article. Any suggestions? I don't know how the speedy deletion process works or what I need to do. Cmiych (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you redirect this page? The man has recorded music under his own name, so having it under a separate article makes sense. Powelldinho (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello WWGB, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Corn school has been removed. It was removed by MsCheese with the following edit summary '(Updated information on Corn School, added references for non-personally witnessed or experienced material.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with MsCheese before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was writing the AfD at the same time as your prod (which I didn't see). This one was previously A7 speedy deleted I think, but I was putting it on AfD because it has been recreated a few times with similar titles, to have a point of reference and avoid repeated independent deletions. Not sure what is best to do now as this is both prodded and Afd. What do you think? Antipastor (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please restore this article? I am planning on expanding it. This publisher publishes rare books of historical importance in vernacular languages of India.

More random musing (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering what your reasons for requesting that the RUON article be deleted were?

Thanks Pebkac (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Further to my last message, could you please explain why you feel that RUON is not notable and why Junction11 is? The message that I left on the talk page clearly requested that you ask for more information before making any changes

Thanks Pebkac (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've always hoped so. Of course he won't always be a major either. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm an aspiring editor who is new to Wikipedia. I'm writing a paper on revision practices in Wikipedia, and I'm using the murder of Annie Le article as an example. I was confused by your revision of Sep 15 7:03 (UTC). It says that you changed the article from Annie Le to the murder of Annie Le. But I thought this change came earlier at 1:17 that day by 64.252.72.160. That is when I noticed that the bold part of the first sentence changed from Annie Le to the murder of Annie Le. I assumed that the words in bold form the title of the article, since there is no heading at the top. Is this incorrect? I'd appreciate you clearing this up for me. Editor Lara (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

revealing who Hajnal Ban beat at a LNP preselection is not 'excessive' information. It records, for history, the extent of her preselection win against the odds.

Maybe you would prefer it reworded? I have changed the section slightly to remove other 'excessive' information. - Propertysouth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Propertysouth (talk • contribs) 05:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re recent entry in Deaths in 2009 (not of your making) - is this person notable ?! Mind you, we have a dog on the same date. Does my ex-guinea pig count ? LOL.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The intent of this line in the infobox is for listing names or titles by which the killer was known during the crimes being committed or nicknames given by press or authority. Names such as "The Boston Strangler", "The Hillside Strangler", etc., are the intent. If you have a better descriptor title for that line, please advise WP:CRIME so that it can be changed to that, but please do not remove these names because that isn't what alias means. Consider the intent, not the name of the line. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think WWGB's recent edit to change the field to "Also known as" does the trick. – ukexpat (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you reverted a bot edit which removed date links. Kindly note that the linking of dates is no longer encouraged on Wikipedia, and that the bot has community consensus to delink all full dates (please see here). What is more, dates in the reference section are far from being germane to the topic at hand. Thanks for your attention. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To clarify further, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with unlinking dates (it's still the norm), but if you want to keep the dates linked, you need a more convincing reason than "no thanks", which is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Kristina Keneally at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Elekhh (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, you marked this page as {{db-g10}}. It wasn't really G10, as the subject is just random penguins. I went ahead and deleted it as {{db-g3}}. tedder (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi WWGB I have now created an article Leader of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales I would like to change Kristina Keneally's succession box to link to this article. Any objections? Porturology (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello WWGB. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vladimir S. Kostić, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

not angry or nothing just confused? Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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