User talk:WereSpielChequers

Home

Bling

Content

Userboxen

Editcount

Talk

Guestbook

Email

• Welcome to my talk page. If you just want to make a short comment why not put it in my guestbook. If you want to add something to one of the existing topics go ahead, Or click here to start a new topic. As well as archiving, I move barnstars to bling, and friendly one liners to my guestbook.

• If you are here because I named your school or employer on the talk page of your IP address, it means that I thought that some of the edits from your IP address were vandalism. If you don't think what you did was vandalism, then just ask and I'll look again at your edits. If you want me to take that message down and are willing to stop vandalising and make positive edits, then leave me a message here, read this and start making positive edits.

• This very new admin will assume that if a more experienced admin reverts or amends any of my admin actions there is probably a jolly good reason which I will treat as a learning opportunity and try to work out (If it isn't obviously reinforced with a piscine shaped hint).

Quick CSD Survey

Hey Were, A few days ago you made some off the cuff comment about how you didn't know what others thought about your CSD work. I took that as an invitation to take a look... and it looks great. There were some concerns back in September---particularly with your edit summaries---but nothing major. The problem I noticed was that you were using something to the effect of "Not globaly notable yet" or something like that. Well, that is not part of the criteria for keeping, a lot of articles are on people who are not globally notable. The question is are they notable. I also don't like your edit summaries for CSD tagging, I'm never quite sure of what it is talking about---especially the older stuff. I like the more standardized edit summaries that tell me what specific category you are looking at. I have to say, that you seem to have found a niche in USER:NAMES/Attack Pages. Attack pages are one of the "safe" csd categories. I personally rarely see anything wrong with them when articles are deleted as attack pages. There was one article that I was going to nail you for, an article in a foreign language, but you didn't tag it for speedy---and amazing the person who deleted it didn't do so for being in Hindi, they apparently spoke hindi and deleted it as blatant advertising in hindi!---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Balloonman, yup that off the cuff comment was indeed an invitation, and thanks for taking it up. I don't remember the Hindi article, and can only speak two words of Hindi so not sure what I picked up on there. I'll have a look for the page on approved edit summaries on CSD tagging, but while I write edit summaries of attack pages primarily with the admin in mind, when I'm dealing with bios of teenagers and the newly redundant I tend to think of the author whose reading why I've nommed their CV for deletion. Hence my use of "Not yet globally notable" to spare their feelings. Searching User space for "badwords" certainly turned up a lot of old attack pages, perhaps naively I was expecting just to be reverting vandalism on long dormant user pages, and a little surprised at how many times it was the user who was the author. I don't agree that all attacks are clear, and if you don't mind I may bounce some borderline ones by you to see if I've got my tolerance setting right. But once again thanks for the survey. ϢereSpielChequers 01:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: RfA

Woah, I opposed your last one? Well that's just the bat shit because in recent times I thought you were an admin already. My only advice is don't kill your last one by making it a joke, be serious. There's nothing wrong with throwing in a joke or two but don't let other people get the impression that you're making a joke of the whole system. I'm supporting anyway, watchlisted. I'll even co-nom you if you want. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cyclo, yes I've taken the point about humour - no Lolcats next time. ϢereSpielChequers 17:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have to take a closer look at you, but I would be willing to consider a co-nom... my review of your CSD work was a definite positive and my overall impression is positive (But I'd have to do a thorough review first.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I do like the idea of having the poppable one and one of my opposers as co-noms, so Balloonman yes please review me, but no need to hurry; One concern I have is over timing, I have been told that three months is on the edge of acceptability as a gap between RFAs, and I don't want to run until I can see a week where I can be online every day. Also though this process of contacting my opposers has started very well I'm not assuming that everyone will be so quick to reply or so positive. ϢereSpielChequers 01:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I answered via e-mail. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and replied ϢereSpielChequers 01:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

some words for your bot

Hi, I've been patrolling certain words for some time that could do with being botted. Would your bot be interested in taking them on?

• Webiste - website
• Janaury - January
• Febraury - February
• possesion - possession
• posession - possession
• ablity - ability
• avalaible - available
• sucess - success

I don't think any of them generate many false positives. I've probably patrolled them all quite recently, but new ones come up every month. WereSpielChequers 18:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spiel, thanks for the suggestions. It turns out my bot checks for some of them already, but there were a few that weren't on the list and I've added them now.

Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know if you've got epesode - episode? Also what proportion of false positives can you handle , or can you screen them out? For example bieng isn't always a typo for being and thrity isn't always a typo for thirty but "thrity - thirty ignoring all articles containing Umrigar" would be great to bot. WereSpielChequers 14:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have epesode. Consider it added. As regards false positives, I'm happy to add words with occasional false positives, just as long as I don't start seeing hundreds of the damn things all over the place. I regard it as a matter of throughput: if I find I'm spending a lot of time adding article exceptions for a specific false positive, and I can't find any easy way to filter out most of them (eg don't try to correct 'roman' to 'Roman' if it's followed by 'à clé'), then I tend to remove the rule because it takes time away from fixing other less problematic misspellings.

Cheers, Cmdrjameson (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Commander, would your bot be interested in any of the following:

• retrive - retrieve
• retreive - retrieve
• waining - waning
• comunity - community

Also can it handle something as complex as "discuss throw" - "discus throw' (there are a couple of false positives there)? WereSpielChequers 23:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I've added waining and 'discuss throw', I had the others already. I haven't been using the bot very much recently, which is probably why you haven't seen many changes in the last while. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you probably have 'mute point' - 'moot point' as all 98 occurrences that I found were on talk pages, but then you might expect it to be more common there. WereSpielChequers 14:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church edit

Hi,

I'm the guy who edited the opening paragraph on the RCC wiki page anonymously - I made an account to write back.

I am in fact an Eastern Orthodox Christian, which was why I disputed the Roman Catholic Church being THE oldest Christian church. Obviously I believe the lines of succession of both communions go back to the Day of Pentecost in 33AD, so I believe the Eastern Orthodox Church is just as old as the Roman Catholic Church (hence, why I edited the page to say that it was "one of the oldest Christian churches" rather than the oldest church, seeing as though the two bodies are now separate entities, as the article goes on to say later).

If I could have some more elaboration on why there was anything wrong with my edit, I'd very much appreciate it.

In Christ, Tom. Anastasis777 (talk)

On second thoughts your edit was correct, my apologies I've now reverted to your edit. The RCC can be a contentious article, and if others query that change then the right place to discuss it would be talk:Roman Catholic Church WereSpielChequers 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, what did you think I was getting at? Anastasis777 (talk)

I can only put it down to a lack of caffeine on my part - I must have got the before and after on my screen the wrong way round. WereSpielChequers 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, so you thought that I was saying that the Roman Catholic Church was the oldest church, and that I wasn't giving the Eastern Orthodox a fair hearing. An honest mistake :p

By the way, can you help me with setting up a basic user page please? Anastasis777 (talk)

Yes of course, What do you want to say on it? WereSpielChequers 14:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, just so that there's something there. That I'm an Australian, convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, British expatriate. All that stuff. And anything basic that everybody's page needs. I'll just build from there. Anastasis777 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, very minimal first draft up - you probably only want one of the Aussie boxes, more are available at Wikipedia:Userboxes. WereSpielChequers 14:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll let you know if I need more help! Anastasis777 (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

{{tl:talkback|199.125.109.102}}

Hell week???

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:How to pass an RfA... make sure that when you answer your questions, you give complete thoughtful answers (this is a job interview) and don't transclude unless you have 2-4 hours to baby sit the RfA. A few months ago, people started opposing if questions sat that first day. That intensity has died down some, but it still rears its ugly head on occassion. Also, if you can highlight some of your article building that would be great---I mean 70% of your edits are in the article space.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 17:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

SUCKER! Good luck---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck both at your RFA and wikicup -- Tinu Cherian - 12:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My oppose

Thank you for clarifying your position regarding those UAA reports. I wasn't aware that they had created attack pages or other flagrant wiki-violations when I cast my !vote. I still think they aren't username problems, per se, but at least your reasoning was understandable. The oppose is now struck. Cheers mate. Good luck. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wisdom, much appreciated. WereSpielChequers 20:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC reviewing

Good idea for uncertain newcomers. I assume you saw that at WT:FAC; perhaps the idea should be posted there to gain some input from other FAC regulars? Giants2008 (17-14) 00:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you liked it, but if you don't mind I'll hold off posting it to WT:FAC for a couple of days - I'm trying to avoid posting on too many high profile pages this week. In the meantime do you fancy joining in at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Heinrich Bär? Its an interesting story but needs a bit of help on the prose. WereSpielChequers 14:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally got around to making a quick post at the FAC, where I left a few suggestions. Oh, and congratulations on passing your RfA. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed your reviews lately. Thanks and keep up the good work! This may be of some help to you. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

6 votes away

You are six votes away from getting my support ;0---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 05:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Beat the crat gratz

OMG YAY! WP:100! Well done!  GARDEN  23:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! iMatthew // talk // 23:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you did meet my expectations after all...---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 23:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your Request for Adminship as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Lol, that was fast :P  GARDEN  23:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. seresin ( ¡? )  23:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So, this'll only give you more time to compete in the Cup, right? :P Useight (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well more than I have been this week. Maybe I should now try and take Marilyn Manson or Richard Dawkins to FAC. WereSpielChequers 23:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So you became an admin....

...and you first two edits are this and this? :O Lol, anyways...congrats man :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If I had only known!!!---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 23:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You got to WP:100 by the skin of your teeth :) Congratulations man, hope to join you some day. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers is obviously rouge. So far, 100% of his 0 administrator actions have been an inappropriate use of the tools. --Deskana (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, dude! Ceran^→//forge 02:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well done on passing, use the tools well! Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations from a sluggish voter

Oh, well, I did not notice your RfA was finished before I changed my vote on you. Although my vote would be kept at "oppose" section for my laziness[1][2], the examples that you gave me are good enough for me to believe that you will be a good admin. Good luck with the shiny tools. --Caspian blue 00:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Don't know if you saw this, but thought you might want to see it.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 04:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA!

Sorry this is so late. Congrats! :) — neuro^(talk) 20:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations and enjoy! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 18:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Ta muchly

No worries, I'm sometimes on IRC at the wikipedia-en and wikipedia-en-accounts, so I might see you on there. As for the Twitter invite, I just invited everyone on my address list and it just so happened you're on it considering our email conversations, so I won't take it personally that you're going to decline haha. Speak soon mate. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: thankspam

Thanks for the message. I'm not actually coming to a London meetup now - too much money involved. I am, however, coming to the Manchester one in March (Ironholds, Majorly and the lot are coming, too), so if you're up for that then that could be good. Thanks again, — neuro^(talk) 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hello WereSpielChequers. I need help. You were the first person I thought to turn to because you were the first one to come to my aid after I began. I am having a major problem right now, and I don't know who to turn to.

I am a very heavy contributor to the Spyro (series) article and all subsequent articles. Today, someone had the bright idea of taking the three Legend of Spyro articles, and merging them. I am opposed to this on a couple of fronts. One is that, going around merging isn't something you can do without a discussion and consensus. Another thing is that the three article were fairly good on there own (well maybe not one of them, but it could have been improved). I have since reverted those edits and started a discussion about the subject. However, during their massive blanking of the three respective articles, instead of just blanking one and giving it a little link to their new article, it was fully deleted. My biggest priority at this point is trying to raise that one article (The Legend of Spyro: The Eternal Night) from the dead. I then would like someway to keep the three indanger articles from being changed.

I understand if you're not the person to help me and if you aren't could you please point me to someone who can help me.

Thank you. Wise dude321 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wisedude. I'm actually away from home for a few days and only accessing the Internet occasionally by a notebook with a small screen and a slow connection that is rather limiting me. But here's what I've noticed. Firstly The Legend of Spyro: The Eternal Night has not been deleted it has been redirected. If it was deleted it would become a redlink and only an admin could get its contents back. As it is you can access it by:

• Click on The Legend of Spyro: The Eternal Night
• That takes you to the article it has been redirected to, but also you'll see a note at the very top of the article saying where it has been redirected from, click on that and you should now be able to access the talk page and history of The Legend of Spyro: The Eternal Night, so you can copy text from there into the merged article and also see who did the redirect so you can communicate with them. Undoing the last edit to that artice would undo the redirect, but I would suggest you talk first to avoid any risk of an edit conflict.

Secondly I really have no opinion as to whether the merge makes sense or not as I have had very little involvement in articles about computer games.

thirdly if you expand the section within the article on each of the particular games you can also change the redirect to link to a particular section by adding #section name in the redirect. (you should also leave an invisible comment in the article so that no-one changes the section nane without also changing the redirect).

fourthly As for protecting it, I'm afraid one of the things we have to get used to here is that anything you write can get rewritten by subsequent editors. Usually the result is an improvement but sometimes one has to wonder :-) There are forms of protection available for targets of persistent vandalism, but this sounds to me like a good faith edit.

Hope that helps WereSpielChequers 18:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

watchlist

Hi Seiel Spiel, was cleaning out my watchlist, (your RfA) and saw you closed with a go. Congratulations! Best of luck. — Ched (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ched, and I'm now back in the UK - very glad I timed my RFA for the week I was around and on broadband WereSpielChequers 22:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Little late?

Sorry it's so late, but you never recieved it. Congrats on your successfull RfA!

Xclamation point 04:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My late congrats too. Like the thoughtful response comments, not a templated message (like I used on most of mine). Cheers, Spencer^T♦C 19:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignace Peter VII Jarweh

Thank you for copyediting Ignace Peter VII Jarweh. A ntv (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome, that was an interesting read - feel free to drop a note here when you have other articles you'd like me to look at WereSpielChequers 00:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you also for Apocalypse of Abraham. I appreciate your work. A ntv (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

Thank you also for 2 Baruch copyedit. A ntv (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you also for Testament of Abraham copyedit. I appreciate. A ntv (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your very welcome, though I should warn you that my knowledge of theology is not great. WereSpielChequers 11:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

User:MZMcBride/Sandbox 3

Dude, you realize it's going to reset when the page updates in a few days, right? :-)

While I don't necessarily agree with removing people, seeing admins have to waste time renumbering large tables pains me. Surely there are better uses of time.

I offered a while ago to script an exclusion mechanism if someone made a proper list (well, two lists, really, one of bots to be removed completely and one of people that should be replaced with "Placeholder"). If you're willing to make the two lists (and I think one already exists), I can do the rest.

Just an idea. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes I figured from the refresh rate that I had a couple of days to finish something that would have been quite quick in excel and move it to replace the November list. But automation would make sense. The editors who want to be replaced with placeholder are here. A list of bots is more difficult, Category:Wikipedia bots by name claims to be such but only has 46. I removed all editors with "bot" in their name except for the following who I believe are not bots:

• Botteville
• KP Botany
• Lordkinbote
• Robotman1974

I've now created Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Not Bots for them.

I suspect you have already removed flagged bots and therefore need Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/unflagged bots, which needs updating, but has most of those I screened out I've just updated. I would think that for a weekly process having those three pages would enable changes to be made quite easily - ie any anomalies will be fixed on the run after they are added to the appropriate list. WereSpielChequers 08:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done a one off update to the list as I'd almost finished. But I rather suspect there will be some anomalies due to the manual processing I did; so yes an automated process would be great. WereSpielChequers 14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. I ignored Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Not Bots. If the bot is listed at /Unflagged_bots, it's removed. If a user is listed at /Anonymous, they're replaced with "Place holder." Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WT:Rfa#Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NNBot II

It's a proposal for a CSD noticeboard; debate is over what to use it for. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Navigation Box

Hi there, and congrats on your successful RfA.

I enjoyed your user page, which I came across after you edited one of the articles on my watchlist. In particular I admired your navigation box, and shamelessly copied and adapted it for myself. So, thanks ! I also made a couple of minor improvements which I thought worth mentioning:

• Used File:UserIconContributions.svg instead of File:UserIconContributions.png for a higher resolution image.
• Made the Editcount image and label link to <your Edit and action count>. I notice your Editcount image links to User:WereSpielChequers/Cribs (was this intended ?), and the label link seems to be broken, returning an empty page when I click it.
• Used WikiTable syntax instead of html table tags (personal preference).

Cheers ! - Grogan deYobbo (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, glad you found it useful, I cribbed various elements from an assortment of other users and its evolved a bit and probably needs a few tweaks. Once I've done new admin school and found which links are I need most as an admin I'll probably do an overhaul. WereSpielChequers 00:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup

Hey, just so you know, you've been knocked out of the ten Wildcards. You're four points behind Neurolysis for that final spot. Useight (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup I noticed. A lot of my time on the wiki in the last few days has been at CSD, or elsewhere in Wikispace and while a couple of my rescues are still around, deleting articles doesn't really add to your mainspace edits. But March is yet young and I plan to be at home and online much more than in Feb. WereSpielChequers 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Fewer edits?

I noticed that my name disappeared entirely from the "List of Wikipedians by number of edits". It was in a previous version [3]. So, have I travelled backward in time (if, so great!), or are my recent edits counting as negative contributions? Piano non troppo (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Piano, in the version I loaded you were in 757th place with 27,363 edits. However User:Ryoung122 has updated it again today and I can't access the current version of Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/latest without crashing this PC (its >250k as opposed to the 117k file that my PC struggled with) but I don't think either of us are in this version. WereSpielChequers 13:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering why the latest edit count update is a version from six months ago. Check the Nov 2008 version, I had 198,000, currently I have 225,000. The same for the others too. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dr Blofeld, you had 222290 in the version I loaded, but it has since been replaced using earlier data and with a file size that my PC struggles with. WereSpielChequers 17:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the new one has me at 18,720 edits, while November's had me at 28,951. This data is indeed from six months ago, I hit 19,000 edits on July 25th, 2008. Useight (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to fix this, but it keeps crashing my browser. Maybe if I wasn't using IE6...Useight (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've checked in the version I loaded and as at the 25th Feb you were in 360th position with 40,110 edits. I've been trying to undo this mornings edit on my home PC which is Ubuntu - but it just hangs and after twenty minutes an or so I have to reboot. I'm now trying on an IE machine! WereSpielChequers 20:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Now fixed and reverted! WereSpielChequers 20:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey buddy, I've just passed 226,000. Thanks for the new additions! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I wondered if you could generate lists of editors by number of articles created? It would be interesting to see. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Doc, I don't have the tools to do that, you'd need someone like User:MZMcBride‎ to do that, also I suspect it would overstate some users over others. In particular unless you screen out redirects it would overstate the contributions of users like me who fix redlinks, as it really doesn't take much effort to create a redirect to resolve some redlinks. WereSpielChequers 10:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Birkett

Thanks for the commenting and help :). Ironholds (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A pleasure. I'm relying on Wikipedia as my source for the seat he was offered being National Liberal - but I think it makes sense in terms of what was going on then. By 1932 there was a pretty sharp split between the Liberals and National Liberals. WereSpielChequers 09:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be fine; as you say, it is fairly obvious which side of the line an MP is on. How do you know so much about this period? Ironholds (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It was the period of British History that I did at A level. WereSpielChequers 09:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, fair enough. I did the Imperial colonisation/decolonisation bit; as a result I know 10-15 year snippets of certain countries histories and not much else. Ironholds (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose you'd be able to check out William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield for spieling errors? Ironholds (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I've made a quick first pass, but I'm no expert on that century. However I think the paragraph about the regency needs a revisit - Butcher Cumberland would have been 30 then and not a child and if Frederick was dead he could scarcely become heir. I suspect the intent was to bypass him and appoint the future George III as heir - one f his names being Frederick. Would you mind rereading your sources for that bit? WereSpielChequers 12:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

17:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 17:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Scorpion Lrv

Hi WereSpielChequers, Scorpion Lrv looks pretty good - excellent job salvaging :) - Fastily (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nikos tatasopoulos

Ok, let's give it a try then. I put a tag on the page, so others may contribute to the article and establish further notability. De728631 (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks WereSpielChequers 16:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

RUDDY1.jpg

Hello! You declined my deletion request of File:RUDDY1.jpg. G7 does contain "If the author blanks the page (outside user space), this can be taken as a deletion request", and I'm thinking that replacing that original image with a patch of brown something would be the equivalent of a blanking in the File namespace. Doesn't that make sense?

The history hints that the photo is of the uploader. That user already has another photo of himself, and as he is not encyclopedically notable, RUDDY1.jpg serves no purpose (especially not in it's "blanked" state). Would you reconsider your decision? Perhaps you could delete it under "housekeeping" or something instead...

PS: There is something wrong with your editnotice, the text below the edit box is also pink ("Content that violates any...") Plrk (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point, now deleted. thanks for the editnotice advice I'll look at that later. WereSpielChequers 08:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit notice also now fixed. WereSpielChequers 11:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Joseph Atick

No problem :). -Senseless!... says you, says me 20:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Meetup

Oh, it was the last one. I think my perception of it was rather different, but then I had a Oxford mathematics graduate doing a PhD at Cambridge on one side and Geni the Copyright God (tm) on the other. Ironholds (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK next time that happens lets try and start a discussion as to whether wrestling or anime produces more articles which include posses when they mean possess, and if you can provoke any of those who were present last month into saying Pokemon without doing so yourself I'll stand you a pint. WereSpielChequers 10:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Jazz Laker

Hi, I noticed that you deleted the article under a different criteria (A7 instead of G10). I no longer have access to the article, but I seem to recall some wording to the effect of "I wrote this all by myself", that made me pick G10 as the best criteria. Was I in error, or do you feel that the article could have been deleted under G10 as well? Thanks in advance. decltype (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi decltype, I read it twice and didn't see an attack, but you left something in your tag along the lines of probably also A7 and I deleted it per that as I agreed with you there - we get lots of pages about awesome teenage actors, sportstars and so forth but unless they've done something outside their school they almost all fail notability. Can I suggest you have another read of wp:delete and wp:speedy? If you read G10:

Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity. These are sometimes called "attack pages". This includes legal threats, and biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met. Example: "John Doe is an idiot who likes to curse at little kids"

I think they key phrase here is "and unsourced" as opposed to "or unsourced", so "I wrote this all by myself" to my mind wouldn't be a G10 as though its unsourced, "Awesome Aussie Actor" is not negative. Conversely David Irving, David Icke and Russell Brand all have negative info in them but we try to make sure its all sourced. WereSpielChequers 10:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a very thorough answer. To clarify: My rationale for G10 was the fact that the entire article was so poorly written, together with "I wrote this all by myself". I therefore saw the entire article as a (possible) deliberate attempt to ridicule the subject, thus G10.

I will have another read of WP:CSD, in fact I do all the time :). I try to seek clarification every time my speedies are deleted under a different criteria. Usually it's just a matter of opinion, but I nevertheless see it as an alarm bell that I might be misinterpreting the policy. Again thanks. decltype (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks A Bunch!

La Alquimista haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk puj with friendly messuj to all.

My exams got over today. Thanks a ton for wishing me luck! La Alquimista 12:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Claude LeClerc article

I noticed you declined the speedy on this. On the talk page, I pointed out a concern with the article, i.e. not that there aren't any good sources, there aren't any for "Claude LeClerc" sculptor. And frankly, that was my concern, lack of sources. I do a lot of reviewing of CSD'd and prodded articles and my research into this one was really frustrating (and fruitless). 74.69.39.11 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)