User talk:5 albert square

Hi everyone

Welcome to my talk page!

To keep things simple, all questions asked on this page will be responded to on this page unless stated otherwise. Finally please remember to sign your signature using the button.

Welcome!

Hello, 5 albert square, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Captain nigel croker, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Captain nigel croker

A tag has been placed on Captain nigel croker requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for user pages

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your entry in the New Contributors page was unsigned. Please sign your updates wherever you make them. As for categories for user pages, most of those are assigned to user pages when you place user boxes on your user page. Check out my user page, and you will see how the user boxes correspond in most cases with categories at the bottom of the page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help

Hi, if you need help using Wikipedia & the excellent resources above haven't helped, or you just want to talk about Wikipedia, try visiting the new Wikipedia Forum(unaffiliated to Wikipedia). It's at www.thewikipediaforum.com Thanks!dottydotdot (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your article contributions, such as the edit you made to Captain Nigel Croker. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. --Auric (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Clarke

Hi. So far, the café explosion isn't important to Christian's storyline. We try to keep the storylines sections to a minimum and only include the main points for each character. The explosion was more important to Nick and Bradley, so it's mentioned in their articles, but Heather, Lucy, Abi, etc, who were involved, don't have it mentioned in their pages because it wasn't important to their development. If, however, it turns out that it actually was important, it'll be added in the future. We also only include storylines that involve that character, so mentioning what happened inside the café in detail wouldn't be necessary even if we were mentioning the explosion in Christian's article. Basically, for Christian, it was a very minor thing in relation to what we include on Wikipedia. I understand your frustration and your edits were in good faith, but this time they weren't necessary, so they were removed. I hope you understand. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Wikipedia:Userbox should help you. It takes quite a bit of experimentation, I should warn you! Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am trying to change the background of my profile page. How do I do this? --5 albert square (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot change the background of the whole page, but you can create boxes like this one with a different background color. See Wikipedia:Colours. 龗 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I am trying to change the background colour of my page and don't understand how to. I went to Wikipedia:Colours but can't understand that page. I'm really just looking for somewhere I can go to get a pre-made colour so I can just copy the code over? --5 albert square (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use the code below, and change the colour from f5fffa to anything you like - see the list here;

{|
| bgcolor="#f5fffa" | Text goes here.
|}

That will look like this;

Text goes here.

龗 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive language

Hi, you should take issues like this to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{expand}} with stubs

Just an FYI, you don't normally put an {{expand}} template in an article that already has a stub template in it. I think there's actually a bot going around undoing that. Cheers, --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User warnings

Hi
Thanks for your maintainance work on Wikipedia.
Just to let you know though, warning an anon account like User talk:92.251.176.110 three weeks after the fact is mostly pointless though. Even five days later, like here, isn't worth it, and the IP was even warned before for the particular edit.
Cheers, Amalthea 23:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:202.171.172.90

Unfortunately even though he has final warnings recently, they have to generally be on the same day, and not in the same month. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. (msg from doppelganger acct of admrboltz (talk · contribs)) --Εω (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cameltoe

Thank you for your note. I reverted back to an older version that does not appear to include any vandalism. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 23:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1572101 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: –xeno^talk 00:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Ah phew! Thank you Xeno! --5 albert square (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Wilderness

I was simply pointing out that "perpetuating false beliefs about wildlife" is not a crime. I would think that that comment would be considered vandalism more than one pointing out the idiocy of it.

Hi

The edit in question was the one where you said:

": "perpetuating false beliefs about wildlife" I believe that's a class II felony. LMAO!"

To me that came across as vandalism and it obviously did to another editor too as I wasn't the only one that tried to revert the page. That is why you got the message saying the following:

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:White Wilderness (film). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)"

I hope this makes things a little clearer :) --5 albert square (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect copyright infringement claims

Please be sure to research something carefully before claiming it is a copyright infringement. In this edit you claimed that the Ōnishi, Ehime article was a copyright infringement of this page at AllExperts. However, if you read the bottom of the page at that site, it clearly states the following:

This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia.

This indicates they copied their content from Wikipedia, not the other way around. If you have any questions regarding possible copyright infringement or plagiarism in articles here, feel free to let me know and I'll look into them. Please let me know if you have any questions, too. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Well, if you run into someone like that with a real agenda, feel free to either report it directly to an administrator or better still, post a notice at the vandalism-in-progress page. That's how I found it. Guy had a serious axe to grind; between the the snarky edit summaries and the questionable edits, I figured a timeout was warranted. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brad101

Hello, you might want to think twice about suggesting that an editor with over 29,000 edits over nearly three and a half years needs to visit the welcome page or use the sandbox. Generally speaking, those warning templates such as {{uw-tdel1}} which you placed on the talk page of Brad101 (talk · contribs) are meant for beginner editors only. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Sorry, I made that edit in good faith. I looked at his talk page and could only see posts from about 2 weeks ago on it? I didn't see anything to state how long he'd been an editor and how many edits he'd made. I still can't see that, can you please tell me where to find that so I don't make another good faith edit like that?

Sorry for offending you --5 albert square (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not offended, just pointing out something I thought you should be aware of. To see edit counts and date user signed up at a glance, use Popups. It is installed through your Wikipedia preferences under the Gadgets tab. Once installed, when you point at a user's name in a watchlist or other place where it is linked, like a signature, the popup will show a preview of the user's user page and list the totals for the user at the bottom of the preview. Let me know how it works for you. Sswonk (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for that, after a bit of confusion I think I've got it working ok. Wasn't sure which popup box to check under the gadgets so just checked them all. Thanks :) --5 albert square (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rupert Grint

Yes, I know. I would like to apologize again though. :) For me, it's the hazards of using a laptop with a touchpad - too much pressure and it randomly clicks on links. And, as per Sod's law, it's always the rollback link. :( Bit unfortunate really. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vaudeville and 207.165.149.21

Hi 5 Albert Square! Thank you for warning 207.165.149.21 about his/her vandalism to Vaudeville. But, s/he was already at a Level 2 warning. So, your warning, which I think was applied by Twinkle, should have been a Level 3 warning such as {{Uw-vandalism3}}. Would you please consider deleting and replacing your Level 2 warning with the more appropriate Level 3 warning? Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Yeah sorry about that, I reverted the edit (I think) it was using Twinkle but someone added a warning template at the same time as I did. I have replaced it now though and also added a final warning template as the user has vandalised since then. --5 albert square (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good! When the IP-only editor hits Level 4im, it’s time to file a report on him/her at WP:AIV. The blocking admins are pretty good about giving such editors much-needed time-outs. I notice that Twinkle (TW) sometimes does odd things like giving a Level 1 warning after another recent changes patroller has given a Level 3, which was exactly what gave rise to my contacting you earlier. I also notice that TW and Huggle (HG), which I use, are not very compatible. Sometimes, just as I am about to revert with HG, HG will tell me that it as already been done, but not show me the new version. Then, when I investigate manually, it’s usually because the other editor reverted with TW. Thanks again! Happy hunting on the recent changes trail! — SpikeToronto (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Slater

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stacey Slater. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just want to say that even though I agreed with your reverts, I still felt the need to give a warning because I wouldn't want you to get blocked, so I wanted to make you aware of the three revert rule. Obviously it also applies to myself. If it comes down to it, I will have to fully protect the page so that only administrators can edit it, but I really don't want to do that. Keep up the good work, anyway, and thanks for staying cool. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was wrong to warn you about edit warring, as you actually only reverted once. So please ignore the warning, in fact I'm going to strike it! You did the right thing. It just seemed that the page was getting lots of reverts and I knew you were involved and in my haste I neglected to double check, and thought it best to warn everyone involved (obviously I can't warn myself!) So I'm very sorry about that, I humbly apologise. I won't protect the page at the moment, as he seems to have stopped edit warring and has joined the discussion. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that's cool, everyone makes mistakes Anemone, including admins! I'll need to look up the 3 revert rule though as I'm not 100% sure on how that works. I added the page to my watchlist tonight as I thought with it being seen on screen that Stacey was being told about the divorce that people might try to change it. That's why I asked on the talk page first, thought it only polite and had half-hoped that people would check the talk page before editing. In the meantime I will come and help you out in the discussion :) --5 albert square (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Vitter

Thanks for your politically motivated revert of my fully cited edit to Vitter's page.