User talk:Veganfishcake

Blackpool F.C.[edit]

If you wish to include the info about the East stand then fair enough. However, it needs some changes. The temporary stand is not being rebuilt to accomodate more away fans. The new stand is simply to increase capacity for both home and away fans. And it is inaccurate to state the new stand would not be completed until mid-way through the season as the club simply changed the Wigan game just in case it would not be ready in time. No-one has said anything about it not being ready until mid-way through the season. It also needs other changes to bring it to wikipedia format. Thank you.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 14:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Zoo edits[edit]

Hi - I reverted your recent edits to the zoo article. CAPS is a worthwhile organization and does good work, however, that does not make it a valuable addition to an article about zoos. The fact that an organization opposed to captivity protests at zoos, educates the public, etc., is not really relevant to the article's topic. As well, CAPS is not notable as an external link in this article. If all orgs opposed to zoos were listed, it would be a long and not very relevant list. I assume from your username and recent edits that you wish to highlight animal care problems at zoos. The proper way to do this is to find reliable references that support your POV and add referenced material to the article. I'm not sure if they're mentioned, but I recall a couple of recent Science or Nature type stories citing that zoos aren't suitable for large mammals- so something like that could be a good addition (maybe it's there already - I haven't read full article in a while. Sorry to step on your edits. Good luck Bob98133 (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stats[edit]

Hey - always like to see people doing the laborious things around these parts. Good work on the railway station uses stats :) doktorb _words^deeds 21:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 England riots - broken references[edit]

Hello

Your removal of one of the suggested causes removed a reference (name=NinaP) which was needed elsewhere, so you've broken the references. Please fix it. There's a reason I can't do it myself, or I would. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 23:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya[edit]

Hi Jake. Nice to see that you've made lots of contributions, especially this month.

Just a thought, though. You know in 2007 when you started, you supplied a couple of Edit summaries (ESs)?

Well, mind if I ask why you seem to have stopped supplying ESs?

I see you haven't used Talk pages yet, but they're easy to use.

Just type any reply here, and I'll see it on my watchlist, and get back to you. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and thanks: Brighton & Hove 2007[edit]

I see you've now got that article finished at last! I'd always meant to get back to it after starting it nearly five years ago. Cheers! --A bit iffy (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Brighton and Hove City Council election, 2011. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. What have you got against supplying Edit Summaries? Trafford09 (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In 2011–12 Fleetwood Town F.C. season, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Patrick McLaughlin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited 2011–12 Fleetwood Town F.C. season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lincoln and Braintree (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited 2011–12 Fleetwood Town F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keith Briggs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Hughes (footballer) Afd[edit]

In my nomination I acknowledge Hughes had played for Fleetwood. However Fleetwood are not in a fully professional league Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Line two of WP:NFOOTBALL stats: Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. Fleetwood aren't in a fully professional league. Please acquaint yourself properly with the notablity guidelines before taking part in deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my reason for nomination I stated (see top of AfD), "Has never played in a fully pro league and never played while at Celtic. Has only played in the Conference & therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG". So I only stated on your talkpege that Fleetwood weren't professional by accident. Anyway this discussion is pointless because he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL per not playing in a fully pro league. Happy Editing ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TOTD[edit]

Tip of the day...

Please summarize your work using the Edit summary box

If you make anything other than a minor edit to an article, it helps others if you fill in the edit summary. Edit summaries are visible in the page history, watchlists, and on Recent changes, so they help other users keep track of what is happening to a page.

If you use section editing, the summary box is filled in with the section heading by default (in gray text), which you can follow with more detail. You also can put links to articles in the edit summary. Just put double brackets around [[the article title]] like you would normally. The summary is limited to 255 characters, so many people use common abbreviations, such as sp for correcting spelling mistakes, rm for remove, ce for copy-edit, etc.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Templates[edit]

Nice job on the 2001 and 2005 Navbox templates for the local elections. I always intended to create them, but have never got round to them!

I notice you also added sequence boxes back to the Sheffield council elections. I don't think these are needed in this case, as the article already have the Template:Sheffield Council elections template already on them, which allows the reader to navigate to the articles in the sequence box (and to any other Sheffield council elections as well). I notice HeadlightMorning removed the sequence boxes when he created the above template and this is the same procedure I have recently been following - for instance at Carlisle local elections. I wondered what your thinking was in adding them back in this case?

Anyway regardless to the above, nice to see another person working on local election articles. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point, but think having 2 things doing close to the same job clutters the page a little. To address your point I have amended the Template:Sheffield Council elections so it defaults to be uncollapsed (i.e shown open on each page), even when there is another template on the same page. This should mean the template is as quick now as a sequence box (while still having the extra options to link to). What do you think? Davewild (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above - I copied the 'Carlisle model' because it looked like a concise and visually appealing way to impart the info, but with everything, in further detail, remaining - but in new homes. To have the old stuff - sequence boxes, yearly lists, by-election lists on local elections etc - still there, as well as the new stuff, to me, makes for overkill, and I'd rather adopt the next design or stick with the old model than be left with a superfluous both. Just my opinion, mind.

(I hadn't realised you'd went and re-added them, I thought the '72 sequences were just ones I'd forgot to delete - I'm that used to being the sole editor for these pages, it hadn't occurred to me to check.)HeadlightMorning (talk)

Salford 2007/2011[edit]

Hey Vegan. Just to let you know, really, tomorrow I intend to sort out the pages for Salford's council elections in 2007 and 2011 (as they are 'paired'). Looks like an attempt was made to start and it's subsequently ground to a halt. In the broader context of all council election results it's clear that some editors are comparing each election's results (which is not always correct) whilst others [including me] compare like for like. The latter is correct for those authorities which elect in thirds (such as Manc, Liverpool, Salford) so I might have to start looking at all the 'pairs' and correct the figures. Anyway, that's for later - for tomorrow, it's Salford. doktorb _words^deeds 14:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Erm, sorry, beat you to it :oops: It could do with tidying up though! doktorb _words^deeds 14:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited John Hills (footballer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fylde (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preston meet-up[edit]

Sounds good to me. There's already geek up type events here which could work well in conjunction with Wikipedia editors doktorb _words^deeds 11:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited John Barry (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lancaster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing commons files on Wikipedia[edit]

Hello Veganfushcake, please do not add local (Wikipedia_ categories to Commons files. Per Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons, categories should be added to the commons file description pages, not the Wikipedia file description pages. (example: Wikipedia description page and commons description page). Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My wife is an old girl of Baines Endowed School but that did not stop me deleting the category here. I know it seems a bit messy having to look here for articles and on the Commons for pictures but it is very well established practise. If you want to do image categorisation, there are thousands in commons:Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing category review. (And I would never dream of trying to put the two photos in Preston and Wyre Joint Railway into a Wikipedia category!) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I've no idea what you're talking about. Second of all, that is a photo of Baines School in Poulton-le-Fylde which is the high school & sixth form that myself, my sister, both my parents, my cousin and my grandfather attended. Baines Endowed School is a primary school in Thornton that my father attended.veganfishcake (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! About which particular bit have you no idea? We are only trying to save you wasting your time on edits which get promptly deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new to wikipedia so am unfamiliar with wikipedia jargen as of yet veganfishcake (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So which bit of wiki jargon did you not understand? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free files and images are stored on a separate database, Wikimedia Commons. While you can see commons media on Wikipedia, it isn't actually "here" on Wikipedia. So if you add categories to the Wikipedia file description page, you are categorizing a non-existent file. Categories should therefore be added to the commons description page, as that is where the actual file is. I hope that helps. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to help. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Labour Party (UK), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Welshsocialist (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I will put up ^{[citation needed]} for the centre-left claims as I genuinely believe the Labour Party are a centre-right party as all they've done in local or national governments over the last 15 years is mostly centre-right reforms. I did not make those edits as vandalism. veganfishcake (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't remove references because you don't like them and it's unreasonable to put ^{[citation needed]} tags anywhere you see the word socialist, even if the claim that the party is democratic socialist has been referenced in the infobox and the main prose. -- Peter (Talk page) 17:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not removing them because I don't like them but because they were out of date. The Labour Party used to be socialist and center-left when the reference was written, but has since shifted to center-right. veganfishcake (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Labour is a centre-left party, that is what most netural obverses agree with, that is were Labour would position itself. In Westminster sense the centre has shifted, and in that sense, Labour is centre-left at the Westmisnter scale. Same as the Democrats being centre-left on the US scale, and the SDP is centre-left in Germany, etc. The political centre is not a fixed point, and varies from place to place. As for the references, most of those are in date and the current Clause IV (introduced by Tony Blair) of the Labour Party states that it is a democratic socialist party, and Labour still currently describes itself as such. --Welshsocialist (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing and centre-left mean having progressive and egalitarian principles. This has always and will always be the case. Labour do not have these principles anymore. The Democrats are also centre-right. The gap between rich and poor increased under Tony Blair & Gordon Brown. Tony Blair privatised more than Thatcher did. Tony Blair started two illegal wars. Unions lost even more rights while corporations and banks gained more rights under Blair and Brown bailed out the banks to the tune of many millions which was used on bankers bonuses. These are fairy ring-wing things that happened under the last Labour government. Please give citations for claims of centre-left. People with a genuine understanding of what left-wing and centre-left generally agree that New Labour are not centre-left. Being more left-wing than the Conservative Party does not make Labour centre-left unlike what most people think. veganfishcake (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that some of the references that were removed, which called the party ethical socialist, were from 2005'. To me, that isn't very out of date. -- Peter (Talk page) 19:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and put back, genuine mistake veganfishcake (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"....Unlike what most people think" in other words, you personally don't believe Labour is left wing enough, and therefore want to change it? I would like some citition that Labour is, in fact, not centre-left. As for what Labour did in government I think it did a lot of progressive, centre-left things. Minimum wage, sure start, civil partnerships, lowering the age of consent for homosexuals,abolition of section 28, devolution, recording investment in the NHS, banned anti-personal mines, more rights for workers, increased child benefit, etc, etc. Anyone can recite very different accounts of what a government has achieved, or did wrong. Depending on their idealogical POV. It just ammounts to original research, and a valid source.--Welshsocialist (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved in left-wing politics and members of true left-wing groups like Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Party (formerly Militant Labour), Socialist Resistance, Permanent Revolution, Communist Party of Britain, Communist Party of Great Britain (M–L), Green Party of England and Wales, Scottish Green Party, Respect Party all say that Labour are not left-leaning. I am not alone in believing Labour to be centerist at best. Under Blair and Brown the gap between rich and poor widened. This is not progressive. This is not egalitarian. This is right-wing. Under Blair the number of millioniares in the UK exploded, and we became a much more unequal society, basically finishing off Thatcher's job. Corporations got more rights and the banks were bailed out to the tune of tens of billions of pounds. As for citations:

[1] - showing lack of certainty about where Labour lay.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]

veganfishcake (talk)

Yahoo anwsers is not reiable, a blog is someone's opinion and thats not fact, socialism today is a newspaper of a political party, so has an agenda, and the political compass does not take into account the time or place of politics, so therefore doesn't reaaly take into accoutn that, in a Westminster context Labour is centre-left. Like in a Welsh context, Welsh Labour, and Plaid Cymru are centre-left, in a German context the SDP is centre-left, in the American context the Democrats are centre-left. The centre is not a fixed point, it various from country to coutnry.--Welshsocialist (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To have any sense of left or socialism you have to have egaliarian principles and there is no evidence that since Blair took over the Labour Party that the party has egalitarian principles. veganfishcake (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Animal Protection Party for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Animal Protection Party 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/Animal Protection Party 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. doktorb _words^deeds 06:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 2[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism[edit]

Instead of repeatedly tagging the article will you please explain the problem at Talk:Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism/Archive 4#Not cited. The problem cannot be addressed if you will not help us understand what it is. Betty Logan (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veganism[edit]

You have installed your preferred wording several times at Veganism despite other editors supporting my stance at Talk:Veganism#Honey_edits. Your reluctance to enter into a discussion during a dispute just prolongs it, but if you were to join the discussion it may be possible to come up with a wording we all agree on. Betty Logan (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history at Veganism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Betty Logan (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your most recent revert while logged out has left me with no choice but to request an investigation into your behaviour. If you wish to comment the case is at WP:AN3#User:Veganfishcake reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: ). Betty Logan (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Kuru (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it's fairly clear that you've reverted for a fourth time in 24 hours while logged out, you are very clearly in violation of our edit warring policy even with your logged in edits. Your explicit declaration that you will continue to revert the material despite a clear opposing consensus leaves no room for discretion; please conclude the debate on the article's talk page before making any further edits to that article. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Veganfishcake (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It appears I have been blocked a second time for the same single action, and was not given a chance to give evidence in the investigation against me for the same one action. I have also not been told in my talk page about the decision to block me a second time. I have served the original 24 hours ban and therefore believe I should be unbanned.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - only one appeal open at a time please.Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

veganfishcake (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what happened. In the middle of a 24 hour block for edit warring, you started editing while logged out and had the block extended to a week for block evasion. There are only five days left in the block, so wait. Also, it's bad form to have more than one open request at a time. Origamite^{is out right now} 00:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read the initial report to get me blocked (in the history of the following article: WP:AN3#User:Veganfishcake reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: ) ), or as I will quote from just a few lines above in this very talk page: "Unfortunately your most recent revert while logged out has left me with no choice but to request an investigation into your behaviour. If you wish to comment the case is at WP:AN3#User:Veganfishcake reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: ). Betty Logan (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)", it states that they believed I had logged out and edited in order to avoid getting blocked in the first place. As it happens, someone else I live with who agrees with me on this issue logged me out and made the edit using my computer. I then got banned for 24 hours for something which I accept I did, I kept on reversing a post. Within that 24 hours an investigation into sockpuppeting against me was started and I was told I could give evidence, even though I was banned at the time so could not edit the relevant article and got banned for a further week before I next visited Wikipedia so it was too late for me to give evidence as the decision had been made. veganfishcake (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody who lives with you decided to edit Wikipedia, on that article, and bothered signing you out? Please read WP:LITTLEBRO. Origamite^{is out right now} 01:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read this. It still doesn't make what I stated to be false though. Nor does it address the issue that I was blocked after the logged out edit was made, for 3RR and then an investigation into the logged out edit was made, I was informed that I could provide evidence but was blocked at the time and was further blocked for a week before being able to provide evidence. veganfishcake (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Veganfishcake, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SummerPhD (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Veganfishcake (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I have been blocked for apparently using more than one account despite the fact that I have not been using more than one account and I have not been allowed to show evidence in the investigations against me because I was already blocked for a separate issue at the time for one day, and I have been away from Wikipedia for a few days so the decision to further block me for a week was taken before I was given chance to give evidence.

Decline reason:

Whether you made the logged out edit yourself or a family member did it after your were blocked makes not a lick of difference. Editors who are making the same disruptive edits from the same IP/computer are treated as the same individual as there is no behavioural or technical distinction between the two. If it was indeed a family member who hopped online to support you after your block, they certainly did you no favours. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Have some tea. Aimeec110 (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Veganfishcake. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Veganfishcake. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A.F.C. Blackpool, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stuart Parker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Wilhelm Scream, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Stevenson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Veganfishcake. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of speedcubers moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, List of speedcubers, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of speedcubers[edit]

Hello, Veganfishcake. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:List of speedcubers.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

2018 Manchester City Council election (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Newman

2019 Manchester City Council election (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Newman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2011–12 Fleetwood Town F.C. season[edit]

The article 2011–12 Fleetwood Town F.C. season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS significantly

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Spiderone 08:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Christmas Carol (1984 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liz Smith.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]