User talk:Peridon/Archives/2014/July

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion of Talking to Heaven

I noticed you deleted an article which I wrote called "Talking to Heaven" about a TV movie. I would like to re-try to write it in a way that it is not "unambiguous advertising" as that was certainly not my intention. How can I see the article, and get advice on writing it in a more NPOV way? Thanks.Jiminycricket55 (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Err, well now... I didn't delete an article about a TV film - I deleted an article about a medium's book. The film with the same name (and no connection) is still up at its US title with a redirect from Talking to Heaven (film). The TV thing is at James Van Praagh. I'm not going to restore or userfy the deleted article as it reads like almost pure promo. "In the book we get an insight into what happens when...", and "The author -- through these pages -- helps his readers cope with the pain and grief..." are definitely not encyclopaedic, and to be honest, look as though they have come from a book jacket. I don't think the book merits any more than a brief neutrally worded section on the author's page, without the 'Acclaim' stuff. The author is undoubtedly notable, although I reserve judgement on his techniques. Peridon (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Peridon/Archives/2014. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Alex discussion ★ 10:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorted. Peridon (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Check it again. Alex discussion ★ 22:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought you meant it hadn't worked, at first. Sorted, but do keep a watch on it. (I use Monobook, so it can't happen to me. If I see Vector, I know I'm at risk...) Peridon (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

deletion Simplicity.co.za

We provided good enough reason why the page shouldn't be deleted and it was deleted anyway, we will continue to create the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustav.penny (talk • contribs) 17:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

And if it doesn't meet our requirements, we'll continue to delete it... Peridon (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Methode_Electronics

Hi Peridon,

you deleted the article Methode_Electronics which created by me, it is just a wiki page for the company, no advertisements , if the content seems to be advertisement kindly let me know, I will change as per the Wiki Norms

--anandathirumurugan 10:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandathirumurugan (talk • contribs)

Please sign talk page posts with ~~~~. I'm afraid that your article failed on two counts. First, it failed to show real significance for the company. Please read WP:CORP about notabiity for companies, and WP:RS about the reliable independent sources you need to provide to prove the notability. (I've just done a Google search, and I can't see much there. Not every company gets widespread coverage of the sort we want - switches and sensors are less likely to get it than, say, CPU chips.) Second, the wording was pure advertising or promotion - see WP:SPAM. The use of the word 'leverage' as a verb in a clear indicator of a PR department at work, or of someone who has read too much PR material. "Methode helps customers win in their end markets by providing an unmatched combination of customer focus" - is that what you would expect to find in an encyclopaedia? I wouldn't, and even in a directory it wouldn't do anything for me in terms of telling about a company. At least you do say what the company makes. I deleted one article that was so crammed with buzz words that I never even found out what they did. (I wish I'd kept a copy of it...) So, to sum up, not every company gets an article, and this can be hard luck for the makers of behind the scenes stuff that people will associate with the glamorous brand of the final product, and, while you've been an editor here for quite some time, you've got quite a lot to learn. Look at other articles (you can use the 'Random page' link near top left). If you find anything that matches what you posted, please let me know. Peridon (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

User talk:I dream of horses/2014/July#Gunshare, Gun Sharing, Sharing Economy, Yellow-Bike-Project

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:I dream of horses/2014/July#Gunshare, Gun Sharing, Sharing Economy, Yellow-Bike-Project. Somebody is asking about an article you deleted. Thanks. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Peridon, Please forgive my unfamiliarity with this process. Based on your comments/rationale for deleting the article on Gun Sharing, you misread, or failed to understand its content. You mistakenly wrote that I am a member of the NRA. I am not, but have supported it. There's a difference. I am a member of the ACLU, but I'm not sure why my association with either of these org's would require your citing them. The ACLU has provided comment on Gun Sharing, while the NRA has yet to weigh in. MayberryonMushrooms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.44.243 (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for misreading your talk page comment (but still feel that WP:COI applies to supporters as well as to members...), but I did not misread the article. It is totally non-encyclopaedic and fails WP:SPAM (I hesitate to add WP:NOBLE, but as you seem to believe in your cause I will) and appears to fail WP:OR. It is an essay (WP:ESSAY) promoting an idea. Wikipedia is not the place for putting forward ideas. Or for attacking them - my first reading of it had me wondering if this was a rather good piece of satire against the pro-gun lobby (which would have been equally unacceptable here). If at some time there is a programme such as you suggest, and it can be shown to be notable, there will undoubtedly be an article on it. If there is a concerted campaign that achieves national note, that may merit an article. Otherwise, no, this is not the place. Peridon (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Le Cut Inside Man

Hello. A page you deleted has been recreated.

Please delete it again.

Thanks. -FMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.104.59 (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they're both gone. Peridon (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Where do I report this?

Hi, Peridon! I'm not sure if this is a username issue or a COI issue; it's sort of both. Yesterday a new user called FletcherNathan appeared and began making edits to the page about the politician Nathan Fletcher. The first batch of edits included a half dozen images and a lot of text which reflected positively on the politician but was well sourced; I trimmed it a little but felt it was not unreasonable. They were warned, twice, on their talk page, about their username and about avoiding COI. They did not respond and there's no telling if they saw it. Then there were some similar edits by an IP. Then today FletcherNathan added a whole bunch more, less well sourced and more laudatory; I trimmed it drastically. I'm not providing diffs because I'm not asking you to fix this, just to tell me what is the appropriate board to report it on? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I discovered the board Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names and posted about it there. They are continuing to post extensively, so I thought I'd better move on it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Based on a suggestion at that board I also posted at the COI noticeboard. --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep - that's where I'd have suggested. Both of 'em. Glad you're not asking me to fix it - my state at the moment extends to fixing a rum'n'orange and possibly a couple of sausage rolls afterwards. One of those days... Peridon (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
BTW User:Pinkmoira is newly unblocked and renamed (I wonder if she really is...) and might appreciate a helping hand. I took a chance on unblocking as I do sometimes. (Can't just block 'em all the time...) Peridon (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That was nice. Seriously thinking of having another. (Not a Pinkmoira...) Peridon (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Make it a mai tai and I'll join you. --MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
And just FYI: Both of those noticeboards appear to be semi-worthless in dealing with this kind of situation. The Username board listing has gotten a single reply; the COI board entry has gotten no response. It may be moot now because the user in question hasn't posted for a couple of days, but for future reference those boards do not appear to be very effective in dealing with problematic name or COI situations. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Simple Enterprise Agile

Please un delete this Article for the following reason: This article in no way directs anyone to any promotional material. The article provides valuable free content to the Project Management community. It is written by a very experienced Project/ Program Manager and Coach. The Author has numerous publications on Ezines.com, Amazon.com and Slideshare. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simple_Enterprise_Agile&action=edit&redlink=1Betchplus (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - I had already looked in your deleted contribs. Nice thought, though. Now, what I was going to post. No-one said it directed anyone anywhere. It was promotional in itself - and not written in a neutral encyclopaedic style. "What makes SeA unique is its ability...", "So, what does this mean for Teams and Enterprise Environments?", "SeA is one of the easiest, if not the easiest to implement" - these are all PR wording. Apart from the promotional side, I would advise you that Wikipedia is not a directory. To have an article, a subject must be regarded as notable (by OUR definition of notability) and in this case that could possibly be covered by WP:NSOFT if this is software. If it isn't, and it isn't very clear what it is as the link to Agile is to a disambiguation page, I'm not sure if there is a specialised policy. The best fit I can find there is "Agile Software Corporation, a provider of Product Lifecycle Management solutions" whatever those are. If not software, try WP:GNG. In either case, the notability must be referenced to reliable independent sources WP:RS. These do not include the company's site, blogs, forums, YouTube, Facebook etc, CrunchBase, The National Enquirer, or any wiki. You may link to the company site as an External Link, but it cannot show notability (and nor can its Alexa rating, and nor can the company's registration data). In view of your username, I would advise reading WP:COI as well as the other policies I've linked. COI is conflict of interest - editing about subjects you are close to. It's not forbidden, but it's not advised. Enthusiasm, whether generated by one's having created the product or by being paid by the company to write about it, is not a feature that is expected in encyclopaedia articles. BTW You said on the talk page "This is a new framework designed to help multiple industries using Agile" - mew things are not always notable for some time until they become known and reviewed in multiple sources, and some rather more specialised background products and services never achieve it. Peridon (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Just noticed Agile software development, which looks as though it could do with translating out of jargon. Peridon (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
BTW having publications on Amazon means not a lot here. They will list anything that doesn't cost them to keep large stocks of. Including an eighteen page book priced at £99 that I saw once... I don't know Ezines or Slideshare. Peridon (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How can I get this restored to my user page so I can finish? While I understand that none of those publications are noteworthy to you, they are peppered throughout Wiki as genuine references. I would appreciate having my page un deleted (at least to my User Page), so it can be completed. Thank you. Betchplus (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest a fresh write at User:Betchplus/DRAFT (click and save). But first, find the references. Without reasonably widespread coverage in reliable independent sources, there's no chance. I would really suggest getting someone who isn't "a very experienced Project/ Program Manager and Coach" to do it. (No, not me. I find the totally neutral style isn't easy. I can get away with my natural style in manuals, but story-telling and plays are my main area now.) Anyone who has had anything to do with PR is best locked out of the building until this is over. I'm not prepared to restore, as I feel the material was too promo in wording and needed a major overhaul to become encyclopaedic. But without refs, there's no chance. Get them. Never mind what you've seen elsewhere: for notability you must have some WP:RS compliant stuff. See the policy and my 'not this' list. If you're feeling lucky, you could try WP:DRV. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A fresh draft? The work that you deleted took an exorbitant amount of time. Why cant' we have it un deleted to my Sandbox, please? There was an extremely large effort in formatting and writing that was deleted. Please push the work back to my Sandbox so I can finish it. Thank you.Betchplus (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Comment to Betchplus: You have been running all over Wikipedia, asking a dozen or more people for help with this article, and in particular begging to have your original version restored to you. Your username suggests a possible reason why you are so very, very eager to get this into Wikipedia: the Simple Enterprise Agile system you are trying to promote was developed by Robert R. Betcher. Is that you? or do you have a connection to him? If so you need to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You cannot use Wikipedia to promote your own idea, or your own business.
As for the problem you are having with this article: We cannot have an article here unless it has been written about by independent reliable sources. In a search just now I could find NO independent reliable sources for Simple Enterprise Agile. Not a single one. In fact the only references I found online were to you and your quest here at Wikipedia! [1] Please let it go and stop wasting everyone's time. If there are not independent reliable sources writing about it, the system does not qualify for an article here. Not now. Maybe at some future time, after third parties have taken note of it and written about it. But for now, no. And there is no point in trying to "rewrite" or "finish" the article. It won't matter how you rewrite it; if there aren't references to support it, it can't have an article here. Please drop your Simple Enterprise Agile quest and write about some other subject - something that DOES meet Wikipedia guidelines by having independent sourcing. (I am going to post this same note on your talk page, so that other people you ask for help may realize what is going on.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

Your deletion of synagogue article

Hi Peridon, please restore the Creating Kesher Israel Congregation (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) article because it is part of current unresolved dispute that is now at the RfC phase, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#RfC: Should there be mass AfDs of articles about Orthodox synagogues? for more about this matter. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

please do undelete it--a synague established over 100 years ago has at least a claim to importance, and it should be discussed. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Peridon (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused - Peridon, did you restore it with the speedy tag still attached? Or how did it come to have a speedy tag dated the 13th? In any case, I deleted the speedy tag, since it appears that deletion would be controversial. The article is here Kesher Israel Congregation (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), waiting to be improved or have its notability demonstrated. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, that was fun! It's still a stub, but at least now it's a referenced stub. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Oops... forgot to detag... I usually detag other people's when they've restored and forgotten. Thanks. Peridon (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
That's what we're here for - to watch each other's backs.--MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I was watching the sausages I was burning... Peridon (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought I smelled something... --MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

Wizard101 Central

Hi Peridon. I apologize for the long delay in bringing this back up but contacting and discussing with Largoplazo, work and summer travel have all really slowed me down... In re-reviewing the article guidelines along with the rationale provided on the reason for speedy deletion, I was both a little surprised at the direct application of A7 (given the content that I posted) as well as the handling of the deletion of the page for the following reasons:

  • A7 appears to only levy a "significance" threshold as opposed to the full notability standard.
  • In keeping with significance, I posted the referenced web-site's statistics and usage which are in direct keeping with Wikipedia's list of "significant" Internet forums as listed in List of Internet forums. The referenced wiki statistics show that the website hosts the 63rd largest wiki in the world when evaluated based on image count.
  • The article was fact-based where the majority of content was cited. Keeping an article strictly factual and fully referenced does not lend itself to easy justification of significance if the noted facts (particularly those in the bullet above) are not immediately recognizable as being significant. When writing about video game topics, there tends to be a large amount of self-referencing (see for example Music of Final Fantasy XIV) simply because the genre is insular in nature. This certainly clouds issues of significance and notability.
  • I know relativity arguments are weak but I'm intellectually curious how Doomworld is deemed significant and yet the Wizard101 Central article was not?
  • There is an active wikipedia project promoting the extended documentation of video games within Wikipedia so this implied to me there was an active desire to document more of the video game related universe.
  • Per A7 guidelines, attempts should have been made to consolidate material rather than simply just deleting. For example, I could have seen a request to consolidate the information with the existing Wizard101 page even though I happen to believe the segmentation of the information is warranted.
  • In the end, my article may or may not end up being on a subject of notability but I do believe it should be discussed rationally rather than just speedily deleted while I was at work.
Can you please (1) explain to me what I should have done to prove significance other than upload a fully finished, self-apparent notable article and/or (2) reinstate the article so that further discussion can continue? RedValkyre99 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)RedValkyre99
OK. I don't think Doomworld is a particularly good thing to compare with, and I'll be looking at it closer - but we have a policy WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Things do get through sometimes.
A7 is directly actioned. It's speedy deletion, as opposed to the seven days of WP:PROD or of Articles for Deletion WP:AFD. A nominator, and a reviewing admin who may agree and delete, or disagree and detag (or pass by on the other side of the road if they have no opinion). I'll happily userfy your article for further work - user space is the best place for working on a new article as it's only subject to restrictions on advertising, copyvio, hoax and attack. What you will need to do is find reliable independent sources that prove notability. Yes, I know A7 says 'significance'. It's a short cut to keep down the volume at Articles for Deletion. You should aim for survival long term - that's notability. Pass significance, and you can still go to AfD. You should read WP:RS - your references were all to your own site or to a blog associated with the game. Not good. You can't show notability that way. You must have outside coverage of some sort. We might be missing out on some things, but we have to restrict things or we'll have the football league with two teams of about four players each, the oldest player being 12 (I kid not), or drown in student drinking games. We do have an article about a bus shelter on the island of Unst - but that's referenced internationally (and it's even twinned!). It can be done. I spend a lot of time deleting things. Before that, I was tagging things. My first edit was removing some rubbish from an article. I do try to rescue things sometimes (like the bus shelter and even an article about a rapper), and I often turn things over to a friend who delights in rescuing (I'll ping her if you want help). Anyway, it's now at User:RedValkyre99/Wizard101 Central. It's safe there for the time being. IMO you need a bit more about the start of the site - with some outside source if at all possible. Own sites are inherently suspect, and if you'd seen things like the one belonging to a multi-national corporation that turned out to only exist in that site (and its owner's imagination), you'd understand why. I will say that you are well above the standard I see from Minecraft fans, but if it doesn't work as a standalone, there's no reason I can see why a section shouldn't go in the game's article. PS avoid blogs (except ones like the Huffington Post), forums, wikis and anything editable. Peridon (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Vanbox

Hi Peridon, you deleted the article Vanbox which created by me, it is just a wiki page for the our company, no advertisements,if the content seems to be advertisement kindly let me know,I will change as per the Wiki Norms,Thanks! posted by User:Vanbox

Please sign talk page posts with ~~~~ to put your signature and the date stamp on. Also, please use your original account User:Kaloha as I have blocked User:Vanbox for appearing to represent a company or organisation. Please see User talk:Vanbox. Your article was packed with promotional wording - I will only quote one part "As long as you have this product, you will find its dependable performance and the queen of quality. We believe our product will win warm praise from customers.". There was no significance shown for the company either, and it was not referenced and the overall standard of English used was poor (although far better than I could manage in whatever your own language is) - but these are not parts of the reason for deleting. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory or free web space. To have an article on Wikipedia, a company must pass our policy on notability for companies WP:CORP and this must be referenced with reliable independent sources WP:RS. There is no 'right' to have an article here. No advertising or promotion is allowed - please see WP:SPAM. The whole article would need to be rewritten, and suitable referencing found. I'm afraid that in a Google search that eliminated the commoner use of 'vanbox' there (a sort of transporting security thing), I could only find advertising for your product - no independent reviews that I could see, but I might have missed something. USB chargers are something that almost all of us own, but I'm afraid that few of us take much notice of who made them. Once your brand becomes the one that is talked about and written about (outside advertising, of course), then is the time to think about an article. Peridon (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

Websoftcafe.in

Has just been copy paste recreated by the same author. Amortias (T)(C) 18:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Unpasted. And warned. Peridon (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
One guess whos back again in an almost identical format. Amortias (T)(C) 19:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll let someone else have the next one. Either he's totally arrogant or he's not noticed the messages yet. Either way, you'd think he'd realise that there was something amiss.... Peridon (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
He probably has not bothered reading the messages. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I've had a message on the article talk page - where he'd posted Sharpie (marker) and CorenBot found it to be a copy of another site. A reverse copy, actually, so far as I can see. Anyone wanting to investigate further, please do - but at the Sharpie article. I've left him a long message, and removed both CorenBot and the Sharpie material that he'd posted again. I think there are distinct competence issues here. If either of you or @MelanieN: want to carry on the explaining, I'd be grateful. I'm just finishing my tea and heading for a bath. Peridon (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir

Am very greatful for your attention sir. The response is often that my ip is affected by an autoblock of a vandal. It happened lat night it was voided by an admin. I experience the same thing today again.Thank you sir(Wikicology (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC))

Well, it must have gone again... Peridon (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of G4 template

Hello Peridon, I'm reporting Coal Press Nation who recreated a page Lil Kem, which was previously deleted via deletion discussion. I tagged the page back per G4, and after a while, the article creator removed the CSD G4 which was added to the article. This is against CSD rules. Stanleytux (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Warned. I've not replaced the G4 though, as the content is different (you couldn't be sure on that, so you were OK to tag G4). That still doesn't excuse him - it's for the reviewing admin to check that. Peridon (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me on that. Stanleytux (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Sir

Thank you for the memorable assistant you rendered to me today sir. I will forever grateful sir. I want to use this medium to draw your attention to this [2] sir. I created it yesterday but now proposed for deletion by User:Demiurge1000 today. What is your view about this article sir? And your comment @AFD will highly be appreciated sir. Thanks(Wikicology (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC))

Well now... PhD doesn't count at Wikipedia as a notable award (nor do DLit, MD, or whatever the Theology one is). As to the article - I wouldn't speedy it. It passes A7. I'm not well enough up in academic niceties to !vote either way at the AfD about notability. Academic notability is beyond my understanding. Just as is MMA notability most of the time... Peridon (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Jan Emmet Yngson

Hi Peridon.. can you give me a reason why they remove/delete this page..so that I can understand.. is there something wrong with it? or because he is not famous or actor/actress? is there any limitation? ordinary people can't use this? Please answer me...

This is my first time to use Wikipedia to create some kind of article or what.. I searched how to use it, how to use the tags..then after that your going to deleted it with out giving explanation..

This guy is my husband, and I don't see anything wrong to make an article of him.. I want him to leave a legacy for my children in the future..few months or later he will be gone..

I just read Wikipedia:about, it says.. "Wikipedia's articles provide links designed to guide the user to related pages with additional information."

I'm looking forward for your response.. I hope you can help me to understand what's going on.. --JeanGan (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You've had 2 responses at WP:REFUND already ... have you read them? the panda ₯’ 13:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Free encyclopaedia - yes. You don't have to pay to use it like you do with the Britannica. Almost anyone is free to edit it - but there ARE rules. Yngson does not meet the requirements of our policy on biography WP:BIO. Therefore, no article. At Facebook, or MySpace, you can post a page about him. No problems. They are not encyclopaedias. Wikipedia is. Ordinary people can use Wikipedia - that is, read it and edit it. But to be the subject of an article, one has to be notable to more than just one's family, friends and work colleagues. One doesn't have to be Bill Gates (but it helps...). But there must be something that passes WP:BIO and which has references that fit WP:RS. If everyone could have an article, we'd just be another Facebook. Peridon (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Timewave P2

Ive removed 2 edits hes made, His talk page could do with blocking and rev-del the edit summaries looking at them. Amortias (T)(C) 17:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

And I've worked for long enough to let his NPA's roll off till he gets his page blocked btw better me than someone else. Amortias (T)(C) 17:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorted by Monty and TP. (I'd gone out to get a pizza, before things started getting exciting...) Peridon (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peridon/Archives/2014/July&oldid=1141971061"