User talk:Michig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bastille sorry[edit]

Sorry for being so annoying, my friend wanted to be on the page for her birthday since she is a mega fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Argjend Malaj[edit]

The article of Argjend Malaj was deleted back in August if I am not mistaken, and due to constant recreation from a banned user account I am not able to recreate the page at all now. The player does meet the necessary requirements now, having featured in every single league game this season (Soccerway stats). I was wondering if you could let me create this page now seeing as the previous pages were created by a user who has constantly irrupted me regarding the pages on Albanian football, of which I am probably the main user who deals with such pages.Oltianruci (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In view of the history of the article would you be able to create a draft article either in draft or user space? I would then be happy to move that to article space. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I have created an article in my sandbox if that is any help? let me know if anything else is needed. And as this has happened to a few other articles I was wondering if you could help me out with those when I decide to create an article for those players. Regards. Oltianruci (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I've moved your draft to Argjend Malaj. Regards. --Michig (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Days (band) nominated for deletion[edit]

I have nominated the article The Days (band) for deletion because the band lacks notability. You have edited this article in the past and so I thought you might be interested. You may discuss this nomination here: WP:Articles for deletion/The Days (band)

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to the proposed deletion of this article. I see that you provided some references on the discussion page but these references still do not appear in the article. Do you need help putting the references into the article? Because if this is the case I can help you get those references into the article otherwise we are still discussing its deletion. I would hate to see this article disappear just because we can't get the references that you found into it. Please contact me on my talk page so that we can get this article improved to the point where we never have to talk about deletion again. I really would like to help you insert those references if you do need it.
Best regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  16:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm quite capable of adding references, thanks, but I have limited time during the week. If you want to improve the article and add sources please feel free. --Michig (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, I read your message at the top of the talk page where you said that you were very busy. So I value your time and appreciate you answering me so quickly. I did end up inserting the references into the article. Unfortunately it was tagged saying that in-line citations were needed. At least inserting your references into the article prevented it from being deleted. Each of the references that I inserted into the article needs to have a statement of fact before the reference. This article has the potential of becoming good and providing information that people will be looking for regarding the band. I edit in different areas on Wikipedia and have almost no interest in British bands. I am unable to provide the content that go along with the references that you have provided. Also I noticed that you or some other editor. Keep writing statements that reflect your own opinion regarding the band. This is called inserting your point of view. This is not something that is encouraged on Wikipedia and it looks like editorializing. I went back to the article and put in more neutral language. Please use this as an example, when you write more information into the article. I know you have lots of experience, and I respect what you think. But your opinion has no place in an encyclopedia article. Just as my opinion has no place in any of the articles that I edit. Keep up the good work and happy editing.
Best regards,
  Bfpage |leave a message  15:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
It would probably be helpful to look through the article's history to see who has added their own opinions into the article. It certainly wasn't me. --Michig (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Boxing Ring[edit]

Rescue Barnstar Hires.png The Article Rescue Barnstar
Thanks for your good work at List of Australian heavyweight boxing champions. Andrew (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. --Michig (talk) 09:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"Nom entirely incorrect"[edit]

I'd like to hear the backstory behind this one. -- (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

Thank you! --Michig (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Young (musician)[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Cherry Wainer[edit]

It is reported that Cherry Wainer died in Las Vegas on November 16/17 2014. No RS as yet. From facebook:

Sad Message from Keith Woods.
It is my sad duty to announce the passing four days ago at her home in the USA, of one of the most iconic performers, organist Cherry Wainer, who will be forever associated with the glory days of early British rock n roll who could be seen on our black & white television back in the late fifties, In the ground-breaking "Oh Boy" show, often as part of Lord Rockingham XI.
Rumours have circulated on the internet over the last few days, however it is now been confirmed by a personal friend of Cherry who appeared alongside her on the show, that is so fondly remembered by those who are old enough to remember and those who were yet to be born.

Wwwhatsup (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Not someone I'm familiar with to be honest - well before my time. Must have been a good age.--Michig (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Google News Archive is ...back![edit]

So it seems. Good news for people who want to build an encyclopedia. Bad news for people who just want to delete stuff. --Michig (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC) We have a few years of news now at least. --Michig (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


You said that it was the wrong way to move an article. I understand, I didn't really want to move the article, it's just that the links are the wrong way around. The article should be headed 'ITIL', with the main link to it being 'ITIL' - the link to 'The IT Infrastructure Library' isn't really needed at all, but it could be kept for historical reasons.

So I thought it'd be easy just to swap the two around.

What should I have done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fustbariclation (talkcontribs)

Cutting and pasting in that way loses the history of changes from the article. The correct way to do it would be to move the article to the desired title, which effectively renames the article without losing the edit history. As there is a page already at ITIL it would need an administrator to move the articles around. Wikipedia:Moving a page explains it. I think it would probably be worth proposing such a move on the article's talk page to see if there is consensus before moving it. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The Courtesans‎[edit]

There was an AFD! I completely missed it. Thanks for that. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Windy Corner[edit]

I'd be grateful if you'd review your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner. In particular, while a simple !vote count may suggest an even split, the claims that notability had been demonstrated are palpably false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ditto Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Hall. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
There were a range of opinions expressed including delete, keep, and merge. In my view neither of those positions had sufficient support after three weeks of listing for a convincing consensus to be claimed, hence the no consensus close. Your own nomination on the Windy Corner article suggested a merge, the first other argument for deletion from Brianyoumans suggested covering these locations in a list, and Montanabw was also amenable to a merge, leaving only the last 2 delete !votes as favouring out and out deletion. I don't see how this could have been closed with a delete outcome. Yes, there was little support for keeping these as standalone articles, but there wasn't a clear consensus for exactly what we should do with them. --Michig (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
You're not supposed to simply weigh support (i.e. count votes), but to weigh the arguments (and the contents of the merge and delete comments amount to the same outcome). I note another editor has raised similar concerns, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Request to permanently delete article[edit]

Hello Michig, how do I go about permanently deleting (not redirecting to the article The_Courtesans as this is an intentional infringement on our trademark. Trademark application number 3017756, applicant Howard Toshman our manager, date of application 12/08/2013. You can find full decision by Intellectual Property Office adjudicator Mrs Ann Corbett here Please advise or email if further information needed. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgnesJones (talkcontribs)

This is simply a redirect which is there to point people who may be searching for information on Eileen Daly's band to the article on Daly where it is discussed. While a trademark ruling may prohibit certain people from using this name to describe their band, having a redirect with that name does not, I believe, constitute a trademark infringement. --Michig (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for advise[edit]

Hi Michig The Courtesans are a musical band of four women not affiliated to Eileen Daly, Ms Daly's associate created The Courtesans Wiki page with the sole intention of passing off as The Courtesans and to create confusion with the public, we are the owners of the Trademark The Courtesans in all the required entertainment categories, a redirection to Eileen Daly we believe is an infringement of our trademark as it will give the impression that Eileen Daly is in some way related to The Courtesans which she is not. Please advise. Many thanks (AgnesJones (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC))

I am aware from looking at this article today that there is another group called The Courtesans, but at the moment we don't have an article on them. The redirect is currently to the Eileen Daly article because that is currently the only article that has been identified as a suitable target for 'The Courtesans'. There may be other topics for which we don't have articles that would also be suitable targets but while we don't have those articles we simply redirect to the one we do have. I hope that explains it. We are not making any judgment here on which topic is correctly called 'The Courtesans', just reflecting the content we have. --Michig (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your prompt reply, I totally understand your position. Should i understand that there is no possibility to delete entry The Courtesans altogether as it shouldn't be there in the first place for a couple of reasons, one of them is lack of notability and the other is creator of this article is a business associate of Eileen Daly (evidence available on demand) Once again thank you for your time. (AgnesJones (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)) I believe neither band is notable enough for Wikipedia article and therefore there shouldn't be an entry The Courtesans relating to musical band at all. Thank you (AgnesJones (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC))

It's pretty much a lack of notability of Daly's band that led to it being redirected to the Eileen Daly article. Although her band isn't notable enough for its own article, Daly is notable, and there was quite a bit of press resulting from her performance on The X Factor, so it's reasonable to mention her band briefly in the article on her, and the existence of the redirect doesn't indicate that her band is notable, just that someone might come here searching for it and that there is an article that has some details on it. People could come here and do a search on 'The Courtesans' looking for either of the two bands, but unfortunately we only have coverage of one. I appreciate this is frustrating - I looked to see if there was enough coverage around of your band but I didn't find enough to justify an article at this time. If that changes we could create an article and make all this clear including the trademark decision. --Michig (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I've added a mention of the trademark decision in the Eileen Daly article, so hopefully it will be clearer for anyone finding themselves there from the redirect. --Michig (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Michig. It all makes perfect sense. You have been extremely helpful! I am sure the issue will be solved fully with time. We will obviously talk to The X Factor to change the name on the videos of her performances (since her appearance on the program was past our trademark application date) and social media platforms (Facebook, YouTube etc.) to take down her pages if she won't change the name herself to ensure there won't be confusion anymore. Once again thank you for all your help. (AgnesJones (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC))

Hi Michig today someone without user name but with IP undone your redirect to Eileen Daly on the The Courtesans article. Since we are a subject of a constant attacks from Ms Daly and her friends can I ask to put some kind of protection on this redirect or a permanent deletion of The Courtesans article in order to avoid this kind of vandalism? Many thanks (AgnesJones (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC))

It has been redirected again and protected. --Michig (talk) 07:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner[edit]

Not really sure how you came to a no consensus conclusion. Simple maths shows that the consensus leaned towards delete (4 votes to 2), and neither keep !voter presented any wide-publication reliable sources to prove notability. They also basically consist of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT, with no real policy to back their arguments up. I'm inclined to agree with the no consensus for the Ginger Hall AfD, but not this one. I also feel that simply stating "no consensus" makes it appear like you don't take the time to analyse what was a fairly lengthy AfD with a bit of back and forth, so I'd also request you elaborate on that, if you don't change your decision. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: Please see my similar concerns, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I have added some elaboration to the AfD close. Looking at the views expressed rather than the !vote, this AfD has:
Merge - nominator
Delete/cover in a list/cover in race article - Brianyoumans
Keep - Agljones
Keep - Rocknrollmancer
Delete or Merge - Montanabw
Delete - JT
Delete - Lukeno94
We don't just go on vote count, but there are only two out and out delete views there, one favouring covering these points together in a list article, with two keep, and others amenable to a merge but to different target articles. The arguments put forward were split between keeping, deleting, and merging. While there wasn't consensus for keeping this as a standalone article, there wasn't sufficient consensus for outright deletion and neither was there an agreed merge target. --Michig (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way; it doesn't have to be a dedicated !vote for a single thing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I looked at all of the views not just the !votes. We need a clear delete consensus for an article to be deleted and we didn't have that here. --Michig (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Windy Corner[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Windy Corner. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ginger Hall[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ginger Hall. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Andy Hill (Music Supervisor)[edit]

Hi Michig. Happy Thanksgiving, if indeed you're in a place where the holiday is observed. You seem to have led the charge to delete the Wikipedia article about motion picture music supervisor Andy Hill. Can we have a civilized dialogue about why this decision has been made? Recently, there seems to have been an almost vigilante-like purge of material from the site, and I'd like to understand better who's making these decisions and by what authority, so that all of us who rely on Wikipedia can be certain that such decisions are not arbitrary or capricious. The article was written to Wikipedia standards, and although the subject is not "world renowned," his contributions within his professional sector (i.e., the motion picture music industry) are certainly notable. Of the roughly 300 active music supervisors worldwide (those who are not recording artists themselves), no others have won Grammy Awards for their work, and few can claim to have made substantive contributions to music winning 9 Academy Awards. Granted, this is not of great historical significance compared to, say, the discovery of the Higgs boson, but within the field, I'm not sure what one would have to do to be considered more "notable." Please reconsider the deletion. Thanks. Ghostrider51. Ghostrider51 (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't 'lead the charge'. There was a deletion discussion which lasted for the standard seven days where anyone could express an opinion, and all of the opinions expressed were in favour of deletion. I merely closed the discussion and acted on the consensus reached. --Michig (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Oikyo Linux‎ AfD[edit]

The process at this specific name was rapid, but as an admin you can see more history of this editor's previous attempts. DMacks (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just an observation (and to be honest I would guess there have been lots that have gone through prod to AfD quicker than that), and there doesn't seem much chance that there will be a good case against deletion. --Michig (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

/* Contested deletion */[edit]

Hello Michig, I'm Phoenix Aspacio, This is about the Article Oikyo Linux. Oikyo Linux is 2 and a half year old since its first release and just had It's second version the Oikyo Linux 2 this year and it is widely used enough in the world to be called new. It is quite unfair while other companies like Microsoft, Canonical, Apple Computers are free to wrote an article in Wikipedia about their operating system. Well this can be considered favoritism. If you added the Delete in Oikyo Linux Article, may I please ask you to remove it, it's just somewhat like an insult for the developer. Thank you! and may GOD BLESS YOU!. Aspaciop (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Any arguments against deletion really belong in the AfD discussion. While it looks an interesting distro, an encyclopedia article isn't justified unless it can be shown to meet our criteria for notability, which in this case will likely require significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Such coverage undeniably exists for operating systems from Microsoft and Apple and doesn't appear to exist for this. --Michig (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD. I am inviting you to try the improved script! It makes relisting and closing debates much easier and now works in Vector. Support has been added to deal with some incompatibility it had with other gadgets (like wikEd). It also makes use of the new relist count parameter in {{Relist}} to make that process easier. Please do check out the description page and give it a try! Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. --Michig (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Michig![edit]

Thanks. A Happy New Year to you too, and belated congratulations on getting the admin bit. --Michig (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

Josh Lippi page[edit]

Hi Michig,

I was just wondering why the Josh Lippi page was deleted. If it was on the grounds that it needed more references, I have more I can add. Is it possible for you to bring back the page so I can make the necessary edits?

Thanks --DelightfullyDemented (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:DelightfullyDemented. --Michig (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --DelightfullyDemented (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

Rugby Alberta[edit]

Since no one supported the nominator's deletion proposal for said article, how is this "no consensus"? -MacRùsgail (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The nominator's view also gets taken into account. This meant that the nominator favoured deletion, you favoured keeping, and Barryjjoyce supported keeping one and deleting the rest. That isn't a level of particicpation or agreement that could be considered a satisfactory consensus. --Michig (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I agreed with Barryjjoyce on the Rugby Alberta article itself, which means that there was a consensus on that one, but not the others. Therefore the other articles don't have consensus, but that one did.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NOQUORUM explains it, I think. We generally look for more input than that to reach a consensus in AfD discussions. --Michig (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

Boy band vandal[edit]

Hello, I saw that you recently blocked Special:Contributions/ The same person has been at it for about a year now on various IPs in western Canada (Alberta, I believe). You may reference the list of these IPs here: User:Bossanoven/Boy band vandal IPs. - Bossanoven (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Michig[edit]

You recently deleted the page 'T2 Design and Prototype', I am the creator of the original article. I just wondered if it would be possible to get the page reinstated to wikipedia, and also any advice you have on making sure that no issues arise for it's deletion like last time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitached (talkcontribs) 21:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The main concern that led to it being deleted was a lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources, and the sources already identified were not considered sufficient. In order for the article to be reinstated, therefore, some new examples of coverage would need to be found to address this issue. --Michig (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

ASAP Yams[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you deleted ASAP Yams per the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASAP Yams. GiantSnowman then created a redirect from ASAP Yams to ASAP Mob.

I am now currently edit-warring with an IP user who made ASAP Yams into an article. Would this fall under CSD G4? I believe that the page should stay as a redirect to ASAP Mob, or be deleted per the consensus from the AfD discussion. I don't know the content of the original article, so I don't know if more sources have been provided to show his independent notability.

Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi - it appears to be a redirect right now and looks like another admin deleted the article that was there before, so I assume this is fixed for now, but I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Madoka Mako[edit]

(Please excuse me if I have done this improperly, as I am not highly skilled -- to say the least -- at the whole Wikipedia editing process and have never left a message like this before.)

Anyway, due to health issues I have been gone from Wikipedia for several years, and now that I'm back I've just noted that the Madoka Mako page has been deleted. I am not the person who added her originally, but I have met Madoka San personally on several occasions in Japan, starting back in 1996, and I have seen her artwork and her published manga books. I can vouch for the fact that she is well-known in her niche area of the manga publishing world in Tokyo, having worked for publishers such as Inochi No Kotoba Sha and Shindei Senkyodan. I can supply images of Madoka San's published work, if that is what is needed to establish her credibility. Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter, Michig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChriCom (talkcontribs) 20:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The main issue that led to this being deleted was a lack of independent sources discussing the subject. Images of her artwork will not help I'm afraid. --Michig (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Understood. I just think it's regrettable that this limits foreign comics producers whose work does not appear in any English edition -- most particularly those not written in Roman letters -- from being noted anywhere on Wikipedia. ChriCom (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)ChriCom
Coverage in reliable sources in any language is acceptable, although for many subjects where the coverage is mainly in non-English sources it can hard for a lot of editors on the English wikipedia to find. --Michig (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015[edit]

Kevin Jarman[edit]

Hi Michig,

I hope you're well.

I was hoping you may have a moment to discuss the recent deletion of the Kevin Jarman article.

Thanks so much! I look forward to hearing from you.

Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted at AfD with a clear consensus to do so. --Michig (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I understand, its disappointing but I respect the opinions of the editors who contributed. Is there a number I can contact you at? I just have a few questions, I promise I won't take much of your time.


Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You can ask any questions here. --Michig (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable asking in a private setting. Are you located in North America? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No I'm currently in Europe, and sorry but I'm not going to give out personal contact details. --Michig (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps an email address, I'll make it worth your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If you can't say what you want to say here I would have to question why that is. --Michig (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015[edit]

(The) Blitz Ciphers[edit]

As I had copied over the article over to here [1] - shall I add the link to [2] or would some other format be appropriate? Jackiespeel (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, not sure exactly what you are asking. There's no need to add a link on Wikipedia to the wikia page if that's what you mean. --Michig (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
More the reverse direction, from the Wikia page in question (and/or add a link to a historical version of the page) - as the article is perhaps more suited to that wiki than WP. (IF you sign in and switch to Monobook there is a WP-like layout.) Jackiespeel (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
To be honest I don't use wikia so I don't know what would be appropriate to do there. --Michig (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for February 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnny Brown (Scottish boxer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harry Mason (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]