User talk:Ajuk

Signature

Please remove the <big> tags from your signature. They are specifically mentioned as what should not be used to customize a signature (see WP:SIG), and they cause your sig to disrupt surrounding text. Also, there is a missing </span> tag that is causing all text after your sig to turn green. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a sysop and if nobody cared, I wouldn't have asked. Please remove them; they are disruptive. Also notice I'm not the only one who has asked. - auburnpilot talk 21:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. Your signature is disruptive, and multiple editors have asked you to change it. - auburnpilot talk 19:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your comments are poorly formatted and are causing disruption to the talk page. Please do not revert, but fix the comments so they do not cause these problems. Thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Californication

The poor quality of the album, which I myself note and acknowledge, is stated several times in the article. NSR77 ^T_C 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wtdsins.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wtdsins.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sydenham, Warwickshire

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Sydenham, Warwickshire, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Widefox (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Repost of Template:Redlinks

A tag has been placed on Template:Redlinks, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Template:Redlinks is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on [[Talk:Template:Redlinks]] saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Since you probably did not know about this template's previous deletion, the archived discussion can be found here. Accurizer (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Areas of leamington and warwick

Please see the discussion page before adding back Cubbington into a list of areas of Leamington. It is not, but the scope ambiguity in the template is confusing. Widefox (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you discuss your changes to the Warwick district template before on the discussion page before reverting/changing it back to the problematic area (problems discussed on page). Have you any reference to the Leamington/Warwick metro area? wikipedia is no place for original research. I feel Warwick district is an appropriate area. What do you think? Widefox (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Sydenham, Warwickshire

Just to let you know that someone has added a merge tag to this page that you started. Please advance the discussion on the articles talk page. Snowman (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blanking talk page, and swearing

Please do not blank discussion on your talk page [1]. This can be considered vandalism. Widefox (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alcoholic beverages

It appears that someone used your account to do vandalism to the above-captioned template. Bongomatic (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Banksy-ps.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Banksy-ps.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Million_Moments (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Canada Square

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits to One Canada Square have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 14:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reggae-related collaboration

Hi! I found, that you made a proposal for a new WikiProject about reggae. I'm a big fan of ska and reggae, and the whole Jamaican culture as well, so if you want to work with me, fell free to contact (=. I'm a bit new to EnWiki, and my only serious contribution is The Skatalites improvement, but I will work on ska stuff anyway. Good luck! --Nagasheus (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made a proposal and invited some people. Please join (= - Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Wikiproject Reggae.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Reggae - project started (=. --Nagasheus (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Attacks on the London Underground

The inquest process for Jean Charles de Menezes has not been completed yet. Without a verdict, we can no more say he was "unlawfully killed" than - as some might like to say - suggest it was "justifiable homicide". If you reinstate your POV wording again, it will be regarded as vandalism, and dealt with as such. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Unlawfully killed" is a legal definition which covers murder and manslaughter under English law. The inquest may return this verdict, but may decide it was "lawful killing" or maybe even "death by misadventure". Until that happens, we cannot say that it was definitely one or the other. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of National Health glasses

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as National Health glasses, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

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 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ale_Jrb ^talk 12:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Hosking

A tag has been placed on Hosking requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Myosotis Scorpioides 13:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Un-cited addition to Stockton, Warwickshire

I notice you have re-instated the words ...at a cost of £70k to the article on Stockton, Warwickshire in reference to the fencing. Please can you supply a source for this sum of money. Where did you read that it cost £70,000? We need a source (and reference or citation) to verify the information as encylclopedic. Please answer to my talk page. I will leave the reversion for a week or two but if it cannot be substantiated it will need to be removed. Thank you, Andy F (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your reply. I live near Stockton and I remember hearing similar sums bandied about at the time. But "I was told by an employee of Rugby cement shortly after it was put up" is not adequate as an encyclopaedic source. Please delve about (in the local paper's archive, for example, or the Rugby cement company's sources) and get a proper citation please. Until we get something to stand it up, the cost should stay out of the article. BTW, 'cally' is a contraction of Calias (which is the name of the road alongside the canal between Gibraltar Bridge and The Boat Inn - Calias Lane). Do you know where that name originates? Andy F (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Opinion

I know some people that like Shadow the Hedgehog and Sonic (2006). Unknown the Hedgehog 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cabot Circus picture

I just removed the picture you added to Cabot Circus because it was mirrored (reversed). Just wanted to make sure you knew that in case you wanted to upload a corrected version. --TimTay (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Reaction video

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Reaction video, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

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 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. manadude2 (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circus is not always round

Circuses date back to Roman times - see Circus (building). They were not round, so how can my removing your incorrect statement from Cabot Circus be vandalism? --TimTay (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Expense Account

I have nominated Expense Account, 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/Expense Account. 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. TimTay (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Kirsty Rock

A tag has been placed on Kirsty Rock requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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. RadioFan (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSD of Seung-Hui Cho

Did you really mean to tag an article rated GA for speedy deletion? And someone who was on the cover of Newsweek with a {db-person}? Hard to imagine a much more frivolous proposal. I hope this was an inadvertent mistake that you will undo. THF (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Your recent edit to the page PlayStation (brand) appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any other tests that you may do and take a look at the welcome page, if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. AJUK^Talk!! 12:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Kirsty Rock

A tag has been placed on Kirsty Rock requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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. Beach drifter (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sydenham

Just to let you know that Sydenham has been merged into Leamington, see Talk:Sydenham, Warwickshire. Snowman (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Pin number, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. 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. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 21:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create malicious redirects, as you did with Sky wizard‎. They are disruptive and are considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 21:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

File:Market Hill 2, Southam.jpg; you uploaded this image over another different image with the same name. It would have been better if it had a unique name, so that your new image does not hide the old one. I have since made both images available. Incidentally, please add the date the photograph was taken to the new photograph's details. Snowman (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Obscure

Template:Obscure 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. Mike Serfas (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Yoshihisa Maitani

A tag has been placed on Yoshihisa Maitani requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Yoshihisa Maitani, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. The article is a does not independently confirm that the person is notable, you should not remove speedy tags placed on articles you create. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy at Yoshihisa Maitani

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created, as you did with Yoshihisa Maitani. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At-Bristol

Please read the talk page before making an unjustified move. the attraction is not called @-Bristol. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

When making edits, please complete the edit summary so that it it is possible to see why you have made the edit. Also, please take care with spelling and grammar as it just puts a workload on others who have to tidy up after mistakes. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Template:Fct

I have nominated Template:Fct (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:UK Docks

Template:UK Docks 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. Simple Bob (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Smoove & Turrell

A tag has been placed on Smoove & Turrell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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. Eeekster (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tubbies, Severn Beach

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tubbies, Severn Beach. 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/Tubbies, Severn Beach. 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) 01:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of GT85

A tag has been placed on GT85, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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. Wizard191 (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jan 2010

Attacks in the article Thighing

Warning

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Thighing. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of GT85

I have nominated GT85, 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/GT85. 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. Wizard191 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Werburghs page move

I have opened a discussion at the talk page on your recent page move. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warnings

Wikipedia does not carry spoiler warnings, see WP:SPOILER. I have deleted your creation of {{spoilers}} as a recreation of a deleted template. Consensus has been established that warnings that plot information follows are especially unnecessary in sections titled "Plot", so I have also reverted your edit to Planet Terror. —Кузьма^討論 05:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the page move of St Pauls

Please discuss this at the article talk page, you have not established consensus or allowed time for discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted and invited discussion here in a comment at WT:WikiProject Bristol#Page moves of St Pauls and St Werburghs. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also please sort out your signature so that the colour doesn't attach itself to other comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also restored St Werburghs for the same reason. Controversial page moves need to be discussed.--Simple Bob (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't agree is not sufficient reason to move the page, Ajuk. I will take this further if you persist. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stealth parody

The article Stealth parody has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable source for the concept, poor definitions, poor uncited assertions and argument.

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. Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you added was to an unreliable source. Please read WP:RS. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of The Lord Mandelson

Hello Ajuk, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created on May 12 2010, The Lord Mandelson, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:82.69.66.210 (note: page has no mainspace links, and 2 edits). This has been done because the page is either pure vandalism or a blatant hoax (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:82.69.66.210. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of 82.69.66.210 (talk · contribs) 03:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the apostrophes

Why don't you just leave the Bristol articles alone? You were overruled before on a number of articles such as St Pauls and St Werburghs yet you persist in moving and changing things. I'm tempted to submit a formal complaint about your pedantic behaviour which is just tendentious editing. --Simple Bob (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I am prepared to take this further unless you desist. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are moving articles without consensus again. You recent edits have been reverted. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Semi-proportional representation ‎, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OS/2 Fix

Hey, thanks for that (re: Stop & Shop). It also reminded me I have to go back in to link it to the S&S article. Thanks again, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Cameras

Template:WikiProject Cameras 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. Magioladitis (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

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 Liberal Democrats. 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. Trafford09 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for students pledge

Hi I notice you tagged Vote for Students pledge as biased. Please could you explain your objections on the talk page, so it can be improved? I created the article (under my old name Hermajesty21) and would like to make it unbiased, but I don't see the problem with it currently. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gideon Osborne (moved Talk:George Osborne to Talk:Gideon Osborne)

Have you discussed the moving of this high profile BLP anywhere? Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No that's his real name AJUK^Talk!! 23:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get so pissed off when disruptive moves like this without discussion are made WP:COMMONNAME is the reason we name articles- did you not think at least a moment of discussion was worthwhile? Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted all your bold move edits - feel free to open a discussion on the talkpage, please do not move any articles again without further understanding of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Fake-and-real.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fake-and-real.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Twd.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Twd.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ajuk. You have new messages at Talk:M Shed.
Message added 11:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jezhotwells (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

If you persist in editing without summaries, reverting edits that have been arrived at through consensus and other such practices, I shall report you for disruptive ediuts and you are likely to be blocked. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan is referring to this edit, where you removed all but one section of the page. I'll assume that wasn't intentional, but please be careful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as the editor who reported you to AIV because of that edit, I'll just say that I disagree with FB's assumption, since it matches up exactly with the behavior that induced a final warning given by Jezhotwells. Why did you do that to that page? Was it an accident? SilverCityChristmasIsland 23:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His subsequent edit confirms my suspicion; he was trying to change the section, and somehow deleted everything except the paragraph instead. However, I hadn't noticed the addition to that section was not accpetable. I'll look into his editing in more detail, a block may be in order. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your editing history, I've blocked your account indefinitely. This is for the following reasons:

No talk page edits at all, despite large numbers of people disagreeing with many of your edits
Long term problematic editing, as shown by the very large number of warnings above
Most recently, introducing an edit with NPOV and BLP violations after a final warning by Jezhotwells

I'll include an "official" block notice below. But note that before requesting an unblock, you need to be able to convince an admin that these problems are not going to resume. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long term disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, of course the Edit where I removed most of the content from the AV page was a mistake.AJUK^Talk!! 00:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that edit, you said of David Cameron, "He also described AV as being 'incredibly complicated' despite having attended one of the best schools in the country." That is both a logical fallacy (would the vote be more or less complicated had the Prime Minister gone to a worse school?) as well as completely inappropriate bloviating, and you've been here long enough to know that you're not supposed to do that. When you call that edit "a mistake," are you admitting that putting that sort of stuff here is wrong and you'll refrain from doing it from now on? SilverCityChristmasIsland 03:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, What I was saying was that if someone as intelligent as him is calling AV incredibly complicated is a bit dubious. If he'd said it about STV I would have been with him on that. AJUK^Talk!! 10:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You answered "yes" then answered a question nobody asked. Whether David Cameron is stupid, dishonest, both, or neither isn't the issue. You seem to have missed that.

I'll try one last time. You getting your several-years-old account unblocked likely depends on your input. Are you aware that your edit was, for lack of a better term, garbage? Are you aware that it was garbage because you injected your opinion and added a snotty, wholly irrelevant mention of Cameron's school, not because you inadvertently wiped out the page? SilverCityChristmasIsland 17:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point, it maybe obvious to me what he was saying was dishonest, but his intelligence and school background do not actually prove this. was the other part where I mention that he said that AV could have helped keep the Tories in power in 1997 and then show two citations that show the contrary would have happened relevant? Does Jezhotwells actually have any right to warn me, is he an admin? --AJUK^Talk!! 22:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

was the other part where I mention that he said that AV could have helped keep the Tories in power in 1997 and then show two citations that show the contrary would have happened relevant? The first link does not mention Cameron in regards to the 1997 discussion, so no, not allowed. The second one is somewhat better; although it doesn't mention Cameron at all, Cameron seems to have been the reason the BBC did that research and created those graphs. I'm on the fence about it. I'd say that without the BBC explicitly saying that the page was created in response to Cameron's claim, I would say that edit also constitutes original research and maybe a WP:NPOV violation, although WP:OBVIOUS might overrule me. It feels like a coin flip.

Does Jezhotwells actually have any right to warn me Yep.

is he an admin? Nope. Neither am I. SilverCityChristmasIsland 22:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have my account unblocked, and I suggest you both spend more of your time dealing with real vandals. AJUK^Talk!! 12:00, 21 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Infinite is a bit harsh, my edit was not meant as vandalism. AJUK^Talk!! 10:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:26, 28 August 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I do understand why I was blocked but I don't understand why the offence was bad enough to require a block with a time limit let a lone infinite. And what is with infinite, so when I'm 60 the edit I did to the AV referendum in good faith 30+ years previously will still require that I am blocked? Please also note how much I have contributed, because no one else seems to.AJUK^Talk!! 22:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Look a little closer. That word is indefinite, not infinite. Not the same thing. You can be unblocked at anytime if you submit a convincing request in line with the response in your last declined unblock. Arguing about the time frame is not the path to getting unblocked. See WP:GAB for more. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2011 (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.

Orphaned non-free media (File:GTA-SA-GROUP2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:GTA-SA-GROUP2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

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/Ajuk, 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.

Widefox; talk 17:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't logged in, it wasn't another account. AJUK^Talk!! 21:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UB40 Present Arms In Dub CD Album

Today I have updated the page and hopefully explained to the idiots where the connection is between the 2 albums I have noticed in the history that you tried this before ages ago, but someone went ahead and amended your CORRECT edits. Hopefully my explanation and edits with some of your previous material...will now help those confused and generally seeking info and the idiots who dont know any better.

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).

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

Request reason:

It's been a long time, I apologise for my previous behaviour, I would like to get back to making constructive edits under my own account. AJUK^Talk!! 22:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Although you were blocked in 2011, it looks like you engaged in block evasion as late as 2014 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ajuk/Archive). That's more than two years ago, though. As such, this is not so much a decline from me as a request for me information. Before we consider unblocking you, could you be specific as to when you last edited any page other than this one, whether using another account or editing anonymously from an IP address? Have you used any other actual accounts? If unblocked, what sort of editing would you do? Yamla (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2016 (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 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ajuk. 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]

George Wаlker Bush listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect George Wаlker Bush. Since you had some involvement with the George Wаlker Bush redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Administration's listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bush Administration's. Since you had some involvement with the Bush Administration's redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Street Art2

Template:Street Art2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock.

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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to request this account by unblocked since it has been 9 years. AJUK^Talk!! 14:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been socking as User:Theofficeprankster. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2020 (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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Dead Nigger Storage

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dead Nigger Storage requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dead_nigger_storage. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]