User talk:The Twelfth Doctor

TfD nomination of Template:EEMedeemeys

Template:EEMedeemeys has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Deor (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TwelfthDoctor,

I agree with the points that you argued on my talk page but the different characters on the Medeemey template are not even notable anymore. As for the Clarke template, Jane and Ian may be part of the Beale family but Christian, Linda and Roger are not. I know certain users have added Bobby into the template several times but he is wrongly put there as he was never adopted by Jane. In my opinion, I just feel that there are enough templates at the moment for the main Beale family. However, feel free to argue your points on the TfD page. Cutekitten05 (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of WRFenshaw

A tag has been placed on WRFenshaw requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. – PranksterTurtle ^(talk) 04:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Ryan

I think you'll find she is called Melissa Ryan officially as listed on the Waterloo Road website, not Mel Ryan.

EastEnders templates

Please can you not create any new EastEnders navigation templates without discussing them first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders. The current feeling is that there are too many of these templates that are near-duplicates of other templates, and are only created to include one or two minor characters who don't fit into other templates. The latest two are completely unneccessary and I will revert your additions. ^anemone│_projectors 15:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ignore this. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders#Navigation templates. ^anemone│_projectors 11:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg of you to stop doing this now and join the discussion! Please do not ignore your messages! ^anemone│_projectors 15:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop merging the Butcher and Wicks templates. They are staying separate. This has already been discussed and consensus was reached and it will not be changing. Thank you. I have replied to your many comments but you seem to be ignoring me. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 16:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Firstly, I didn't threaten you, I just asked you to stop. Secondly, I don't know why Pat is listed with the Butcher family on the EastEnders website. She's only a Butcher through her marriage to Frank and she's only a Wicks through her marriage to Brian. The Butchers' template isn't Pat's template, and neither is the Wicks template Pat's. The Wicks family members such as Kevin, are nothing to do with the Butchers and therefore the two templates should not be merged. The Wickses and the Butchers were never a single family unit. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but please try to stay calm, it's just a template. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 16:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders villains

Just thought I should let you know, I've nominated this category for deletion, and if you'd like to comment at the discussion, it can be found here. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 10:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Template:EEHills has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Template:EEHills has been reverted, as it removed all content from the page without explanation. Please do not do this, as it is considered vandalism; use the sandbox for testing. If you think the page should be deleted, see this page for instructions. Thank you. Thrane (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Template:EEHills. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 15:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC) AnemoneProjectors (what?) 15:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Peggy Mitchell. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Frickative 13:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erotic dancers cat

Seriously, why are you persisting with this erotic dancers cat in the Peggy article. You have so far had 3 editors saying it shouldnt be there. You can do an official poll on the talk page if you must, but if concensus is not on your side, then the cat cannot stay. That's the way wikipedia works.GunGagdin ^Moan 16:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just go to the talk page of Peggy and start a poll by making your proposal. People will vote whether they agree with your idea or not. Consensus decides the outcome.GunGagdin ^Moan 13:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you get over the fact that she doesn't belong in that category? Go and read WP:CAT please! AnemoneProjectors (what?) 13:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must really hate me. AnemoneProjectors (what?) 13:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. First, I've blocked you for 48h for generic stupidity: just don't do things like this [1]. Second, do this [2] again and I will block you indefinitely William M. Connolley (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your comments

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! AnemoneProjectors (what?) 11:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

I've had to revert this edit of yours twice now. Don't do it again. You very well know that's not appropriate. If you don't understand it, try the talk page and somebody will explain. --auburnpilot talk 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Shadow Honey

A tag has been placed on Shadow Honey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 99.168.86.206 (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get personal!

And what annoys me about editors like you is the fact when you edit a page - YOU HAVE KNOW KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER ON HOW TO DO IT PROPERLLY! If you could honostly see how many editing mistakes you have made personally to many of the articles in the waterloo road sections myself and others have had to change over the months. It not about changing it myself. The fact is if you want to edit you should read the guidlines on how to do so properlly. The article is very clearly badly written, it has no sources to back up what is written etc. I shouldn't have to "change it myself", although i wouldn't mind but why should i and others have to spend ages reverting and editing a page you have created ony for you to come along and change it back most likely so it again becomes a topic of deletion. If you cannot start and maintain an article properlly and correctly - then simply don't bother, because the chances are - it WILL be deleted. I suggest you take a long hard look at the Hogwarts article and then take another long look at this one, because i can guarantee they are worlds apart.

The next time you make a comment on my page - sign your name. 92.11.20.215 (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Road School article

Whilst the article in question, Waterloo Road School is currently under assesment on whether it should be deleated/or merged, I would advise you to refrain from diverting links from other articles to it. For example, the templates in certain character articles such as Rachel Mason and Eddie Lawson have both been changed by yourself. Until the decision on whether the article will stay, such edits should not be made. Thank you Harleyamber (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Bawtree

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Adrian Bawtree, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.adrianbawtree.com/profile.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Adrian Bawtree

A tag has been placed on Adrian Bawtree requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. RadioFan (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Blues

Hi, I noticed that you created a new category, and attempted to redirect an old one to it. There are reasons why this doesn't work very well, and the procedural way to do it is to create a discussion at WP:CFD. I've opened a discussion for you, in the meantime can you refrain from recategorising the articles until discussion has taken place. Thanks, Benea (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please do not continue to recategorise articles, as you've been doing here and here until the discussion has run its course. You may be interested to know that the category was originally titled 'Old Blues', and was changed to 'Christ's Hospital Old Blues' back in 2007 for a number of good reasons. The Old Blues category will therefore probably be deleted and the Christ's Hospital Old Blues form retained. Benea (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders articles

Hi, it would be great if you could get involved more with the EE project. We really need users that are willing to come and discuss things regarding EE articles and how they are managed and styled on wikipedia. However, it's really not helpful if you go against decisions the project has already made. If you diagree with something, I urge you to come and discuss this with the project. Edit warring will just get you blocked, and that would be a shame, as it's clear you are a good editor :) GunGagdin^Moan 17:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't say you weren't warned.GunGagdin ^Moan 18:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you're likely to find a more laid back admin than AnemoneProjectors to be honest. Seriously, he's not the enemy. He's done a lot to build up EE articles on here.GunGagdin ^Moan 18:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Twelfth Doctor. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Griffin

Stop adding one episode categories! IE, school teacher, drug dealer. CTJF83Talk 18:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP 92.12.79.69

It appears that you have been editing logged out as 92.12.79.69 (talk · contribs). Please don't do this. You also have been edit warring on several articles today. If you continue to do this you will end up blocked again. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed that the IP is in fact The Twelfth Doctor logged out. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Revert Rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Libera me. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dgf32 (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for You have been blocked for edit warring, personal attacks including the two at User talk:AnemoneProjectors, and your attempt to deny editing while locked out - I did give you time to reconsider your denial.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I HATE Anemone Projectors. If he calls this abuse then he should talk to prejudice people I know. Then he will know the meaning of the word

PS: Not that I agree with these people but I CERTAINLY DON'T AGREE WITH BUGGERS LIKE HIM!

You should note that AnemoneProjectors did not necessarily have anything to do with the block per se. Your making the comments you have, both on his talk page and here, do however violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. You also clearly violated WP:SOCK. If you wish the length of the block to be reduced, I would strongly urge you to apologize for the statements you have made here and elsewhere. Otherwise, I cannot see any way of that happening. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Foundation Hymn

The article The Foundation Hymn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable song

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Votum (song)

The article Votum (song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing other than song lyrics

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of The Foundation Hymn

I have nominated The Foundation Hymn, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Foundation Hymn. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page will be deleted shortly anyway, but for future reference you can't just paste in the lyrics of an entire song into Wikipedia if it is under copyright without the permission of the copyright holder to release it under a free license, and besides Wikipedia is not a repository of song lyrics. See Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry and Wikipedia:Copyrights. Fences&Windows 00:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin

I have reverted your edit to Sarah Palin. The article is a biography of a living person, which has heightened requirements for sourcing of assertions. Applying the Homophobia category to her article implies that she is homophobic, which is not sourced in the article. I would strongly suggest that, should you still wish to include the category, that you first find consensus for its inclusion on the talk page, at Talk:Sarah Palin. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And adding her to the Template:Thatcherism without explanation is in the eyes of at least me almost incomprehensible. Yes, several people have noticed your unilateral changes to that template of late. Please be advised that should such unilateral changes continue to be made by you, there is a very good chance the template will be protected from edits and you may face some form of discipline for edit warring. Rather than continue to make changes to the template without consensus, I would urge you to use the template's talk page and seek consensus before making any more unilateral changes to it. 22:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please consider not vandalising my user page. Bastin 15:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Thatcherism

This is a formal warning regarding your repeated attempts to add material against consensus to the above template. Your most recent, unexpalined, edit has itself been reverted as well. You have been told repeaatedly now that you will need consensus on the talk page to have more items added, and have refused to so far as I can tell even seek it. In the event there are any further disruptive edits from you regarding this template, and that specifically includes restoring material without consensus, the template could very easily be protected, you could be blocked, after having received this final warning regarding such edits, or potentially both. I therefore urge you in all seriousness to actually attempt to seek consensus on the template talk page first. Probably the best option in this case would be to file an WP:RFC regarding what material to be included. However, continuation of your recent disruptive behavior regarding that template will not be accepted. John Carter (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits to the above template. You have been told how to seek to bring about the changes according to wikipedia policies and guidelines, and still you insist on your unilateral changes. I once again urge you to seek consensus for the changes, as I have indicated above. If you should persist in the sort of reversion which has since itself been reverted, either the template will be fully protected, you will be blocked for repeated edit warring, or, potentially, both. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may benefit from reading WP:NPA and WP:OWN. Your recent comments on the Template talk:Thatcherism could be seen by some as violating the former, and, frankly, it is hard to imagine many people would not at least question whether your statements are in fairly clear violation of the latter. Despite your claims to be, effectively, the "Owner" of such templates, according to wikipedia policy and guidelines no individual owns any content other than possibly their own additions. Repeatedly making claims which defy extant policy and place you in a rather tenuous position does nothing to enhance your credibility. I would strongly urge yo to actually deal with the real issues raised, rather than repeat your claims of ownership. I think the outcome would be much better, and there would be less probability of unfortunate consequences for anyone. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should you make any further attempts to add material to the above template without having first received consensus, I will have no choice but to report you for edit warring. Your reasons for seeking to add the content you favor have been to date found insufficient to justify adding the material by the other editors involved. You have previously been advised that you seek a request for comment as per WP:RFC regarding this matter, and to date have chosen not do so, instead continuing with your additions which have yet to receive, so far as I can tell, any support from anyone other than yourself. I once again urge you to seek other opinion, and, yes, the best way to do that is to request an RfC and leave notices on it on the various relevant project pages. That might work. Your current actions are however, at best, counterproductive. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is to advise you that a discussion regarding your edits to this template has been begun at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Template:Thatcherism. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the event you didn't notice, you have been blocked for 6 months by another admin, User:Moreschi. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, just a reminder. You should know that as per various wikipedia policies, WP:SOCK and related, if you should try to use either an IP address or alternate account while blocked, that would itself be a violation of policy. In general, the length of the block on the oldest account could be lengthened, and any other accounts blocked as well. Also, because IPs are IPs, not accounts, a semi-protection can block them while still allowing registered editors to edit. Basically, I have to say that in at least one of your IP edits of the past 24 hours, you specifically referred to your "contacting the authorities". Of course, that IP had never contacted any authorities as per its history, but this account did. Kind of obvious, right? Anyway, just letting you know that trying to edit the pages in question either with a new account or no account, as long as you are blocked, is grounds for lengthening the time of this block as well as making new blocks on any accounts or IPs, and that, basically, it's not worth it. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course free to at any point request a mentor to assist you or perhaps to just request that the block be lifted as per Wikipedia:Appealing a block. You are free to edit this page under your existing name. Personally, were it me, I would probably strongly consider requesting that someone mentor you. Should a mentor not be found, I think the block would probably remain in place. But you could leave a note for me to perhaps request some sort of formal or informal mentorship on this page, and I could see if there were any editors who would be willing to take on such an assignment. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are associating with a politically incorrect Wikipedian. I am sure you are a great guy, John, but you're ally, Bastin, is offensive towards Christian socialists. He is rude and arrogant and has said that he is God. That is a sign of heresy, blasphemy and mental illness. But I would like a mentor. Thanks. If you can campaign on my behalf I will appreciate unless you will like to take over my mentorship?

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request

Hi, Twelfth Doctor. I took a look at your talk page history, and I don't see any edits that constitute vandalism. It looks to me as if you're in a content dispute with these editors, but as far as I can tell the dispute has remained civil, which is good. When editors disagree about content, it's appropriate for them to contact each other via talk pages; that's not vandalism. Remember to assume good faith of your fellow contributors.

It might be helpful to review our policy page on Dispute resolution; communication with other editors is a recommended step in avoiding disputes. If you feel the dispute is escalating, consider pursuing the other steps listed on that page. Remember that Wikipedia operates by consensus; to that end, it's often useful to get more interested editors involved. You might want to drop a note at the content noticeboard or the WikiProject Politics talk page, to get the opinions of other editors about the disputes. I'm not very active on Wikipedia these days, so I'm afraid I won't be able to shepherd the discussion, but I hope you're able to reach a satisfactory resolution to the conflict. Good luck! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 12:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate content

Comments like these are unacceptable. Wikipedia isn't your personal soapbox. Don't do it again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK

I very strongly recommend that you read the above policy. One of the things it makes quite clear is that creating or using alternate accounts to evade a block is often grounds for being banned. Banning is, effectively, being blocked permanently, with the added provision that any edits made by that person can be reverted or removed without any prior discussion. I know this because I am myself, effectively, one of the "authorities", or admins, you threatened to call in earlier, and I myself came into the discussion because of a posting on one of the administrator noticeboards. If you wish to be allowed to edit again, under this name, and thus avoid the possibility of being banned indefinitely for sockpuppetry, I very strongly urge you to read Wikipedia:Appealing a block and follow the procedure outlined there. Otherwise, about the only things you could do to be allowed to come back after the six months have ended are to wait it out, without creating any more sockpuppets in the interim, or request a mentor as per WP:MENTOR. ut creation of any more sockpuppets will only damage the possibility of your ever being allowed to return to editing. John Carter (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you would like to know that your six month ban was reset to have started over yesterday by another admin because of your use of the alternate account User:Lady Paddock. Should you persist in creating and abusing alternate accounts, I think the probability of your being banned, and your block being extended to indefinite, is very likely. I strongly suggest that you cease abusing sockpuppets. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Thatcherism

Template:Thatcherism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Waterloo Road Comprehensive

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterloo Road Comprehensive (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

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

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello The Twelfth Doctor! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Bruce Grindlay - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Adrian Bawtree - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
John Garfield-Roberts - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi would urge you to participate in more research, it will be worthwhile!

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Twelfth Doctor for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. 5 albert square (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your continued block evasion (as just Confirmed by Checkuser), you are now indefinitely blocked. –MuZemike 22:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Plead for one, final chance

I admit it! I am a sockpuppeteer. Peter Pepperfield and that Lady woman are my 'pets'. But I only did it to cause no harm but to use it as envoy and a way to broadcast my fair ideas. I respect that I have been harsh and I asked for forgiveness but Bastin and AnomeneProjectors have been very harsh and bullying towards me. Bastin insulted one of my puppets by calling her a nutjob which I find extremely offensive. He also formed a coup with John Carter to take over the owenership of the templates I contributed. Looking to new editors, he causes edit wars and they get the blame unfairly. Is this what Wikipedia does! No wonder people don't trust it. This drove me crazy I wanted to instigate a coup to take Wikipedia down and build it to become a truthful, internet encyclopedia without any kudos. I was crazy for thinking that but it is true. Personally, I think that Bastin was quite offensive towards my Christian socialist beliefs and should be blocked for 'political incorrectness'. Since I am a user, I think that he could be meatpuppeting for AnomeneProjectors. I know I am English Wikipedia No.1 Villian but I am nothing more than a revolutionary. I want to pardon and wish that you can see it in your hearts to listen to me plea: Block me for another 3 weeks but give me a mentor. One little step out of line and you can destroy me as well as all my contributions. However, scrutinize Bastin and block him temporarily. I pray and hope you will listen. Your friend and fellow editor, --socialism prevails! 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Creator and Manager of the Blairism and Thatcherism Templates

RfD nomination of Sean Davey

Proposed deletion of John Franklin (headmaster)

The article John Franklin (headmaster) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability issues, plus the article is obviously vandalism: "is an idiot", "married to his dog". etc etc

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _Will^dow (Talk) 16:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John Franklin (headmaster)

The article John Franklin (headmaster) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _Will^dow (Talk) 16:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Rose Kelly (Waterloo Road)

I have nominated Rose Kelly (Waterloo Road), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Kelly (Waterloo Road). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Claritas § 13:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:WRFenshaws

Template:WRFenshaws has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 21 § X in fiction VII

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 21 § X in fiction VII on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]