User talk:Flaming Ferrari

Archives

Rollback

I have Ferrari granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

dates
years
commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

(This even applies for infoboxes.)

Thanks and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Primitivo Viray

The article Primitivo Viray has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Kanat Auyesbay

Hello, Flaming Ferrari,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Kanat Auyesbay should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanat Auyesbay .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marlene Malahoo Forte

Yes, I do have a question - I didn't understand your talk page comment at all. What do you mean, you "un-reviewed" it? (You realise I started the article, don't you?) St Anselm (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tim Pryce for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tim Pryce is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Pryce until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Schwartzenberg (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nigel Sweeney may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Category:Living people]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW

Water under the bridge now, but the next time you find what you think might be a sizable walled garden of non-notable articles, float a trial balloon with relevant authors and/or WikiProjects before filing an enormous raft of "clean-up" AfDs. Yes, there will be some people who will claim they're notable no matter what, but once you've put people under the gun with many AfDs counting down, they will feel beleaguered and are more likely to be defensive and engage in a blanket rejection of your arguments. If you approach them ahead of time, you may at least be able to agree on some criteria to winnow out chaff. Choess (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In this case, I wonder if you might be willing to go back through and do some of the cleanup yourself - it seems that every single one of your nominations is failing, and there is a useful place to discuss the relevant issues here:[1].--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Civility Barnstar

		The Civility Barnstar
		I have opposed almost all of your proposed AFDs on peers not in the House of Lords, a few baronets, and so forth, but it has struck me that you have been remarkably civil in dealing with keen disagreement! Moonraker (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK Independence Party

Someone with 17,000 edits should know about WP:EW, right? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]