Hello, LikeLakers2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Special Talk:UnusedFiles, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. 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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. GILO ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY22:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Special Talk:UnusedFiles, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.
If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on GarfieldRoX5697, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.
If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. At last count, you have made a grand total of eight edits to actual encyclopedia entries, eleven edits to user pages, and 53 edits to user talk pages (not including the additional few edits of your alternative account). As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and neither social network nor a chat room, I strongly suggest that you focus on building our content lest you want to encounter a block in the future. Some leniency is extended to newer users, but after a while, it is expected that every account contribute to both the community and the educational content.
Hello, LikeLakers2. You have new messages at Lukep913's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
In a word, no. Sorry, but I haven't a clue how. I'm more of an up front delete the spam type of admin. I will admit to not even knowing what cascading is or does. (No-one asked me about this at my RfA...) You'd be better off with one of the more behind the scenes people like User:Fæ or User:Gfoley4. In the meantime, I will try to find out more about it, in case someone else asks. My thanks for the userbox, by the way. I looked in your userboxes to see if there was something to nick, and thought, 'That reminds me of something'. Then went to check and found it there. Even more sorry now I can't help with the cascading. Peridon (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It says "Cascading protection should be used only to prevent vandalism to particularly visible pages such as the Main Page.". I definitely think you're better to be talking to one of those two others. I will try many things once (including once climbing a quarry in the dark while sober enough to drive...) but I'd feel safer passing the buck here. Peridon (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this post, would it change your mind if you knew that the individual who posted the question had provided Anderson with material for the Signpost article? This article was entirely about Wikipedia's coverage of the topic from which this individual was banned and about the process that led to the topic-banning of the individual and others from the area. User:Smatprt seems to have forgotten to mention his involvement in the creation of the Signpost article when looking for opinions about whether he was violating the ban by commenting in a thread about that article. And, of course, in adding a link to that article to Jimbo's talk page, he is again violating the topic ban. If you disagree, you can comment at the AE thread I have opened on the matter. (And, yes, I was the editor whose revert Smatprt objected to.)--Peter cohen (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That depends. What was he topic banned from the signpost for? Also, mind just linking me to the AE thread, since I'm too lazy to search for it? :P LikeLakers2 (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. I don't mean Signpost, I mean Spectrum or (IEEE Spectrum). The Signpost article discusses a Spectrum article about Wikipedia's coverage of the Shakespeare authorship question (SAQ). Smatprt is topic-banned from SAQ-related matters. He provided material to the author of a Spectrum article giving his side of the circumstances that led to his topic-banning etc. (Fine as it is off-wiki.) Then he posted in the talk page for the relevant Signpost in-the-news page in a thread about the Spectrum article. His contribution concerns two SAQ-related points. So he is now posting on Wikipedia's systems about matters covered by his topic ban. (He has been reminded in the past about the scope of his ban spreading to all pages and spaces in Wikipedia.) Then he posts on Jimbo's page a link to the Spectrum article. So he is again violating his topic-ban by linking to an off-Wiki SAQ article that he helped create. (Looking at the archives yesterday, I discovered that Smarprt has been criticised in the past for editing articles about himself and organisation(s) in which he has been involved without making his conflict of interest clear. So his failure to mention his involvement in the Spectrum article while linking it and defending its author fits his established modus operandi.)
In response to your note here: I intended to use a level 3 warning template. Per this, "It is not always necessary for an editor engaging in vandalism to receive a full 4 warnings before they can be reported or blocked ... in cases of obvious bad faith vandalism, it may be appropriate to use a level 3 warning". Based on the edits and the username, I decided that this guy was just trolling the page, and I cut to the chase. Regards, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I dispute the revision of the vandalism on the Detroit Waza article. However your edit summary says that an ACL isn't a body part. I just thought I'd point out that in sports a torn ACL is the term for a tear in the Anterior cruciate ligament. Quite a common injury in football and soccer actually. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello LikeLakers2. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:Ksmdr, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly an attack page or negative, unsourced BLP. Thank you. -- DQ (t) (e)02:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File copyright problem with File:Shoopdawhoop-fireurlazer-iphone-87945.185x185.1259579964.65832.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Shoopdawhoop-fireurlazer-iphone-87945.185x185.1259579964.65832.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
Hi, you reverted my changes to MathType (as User:FleetCommand had earlier), with the change comment 'Reverted 1 edit by Quietbritishjim (talk): "Vast removal of verifiable contents and extensive use of weasel words" <-- FleetCommand is correct, you know. He had good reason to do'.
My answer is, "no, I don't know!", because FleetCommand wouldn't tell me what his reasons were. Even after he said he wasn't going to revert me again, I still asked where he thought I had used weasel words, because I am genuinely interested in feedback about my edits and improving the article. I tried my best to assume good faith, and desperately tried to discuss the content of the article, but aside from his initial vague comment he refused to take part (instead just accusing me of "trolling", "edit-warring", and a couple of other insults).
Now you've reverted all my edits again, but perhaps you'll engage in more constructive conversation? If you really think my edits are problematic, can you please discuss them on the talk page? I have numbered my changes to help the discussion. I would especially like to hear where you think I used weasel words. Aside from that, I can't believe that you think that all my changes are bad: some of them are just simple things (like removing duplicated content (4) or turning lists into prose (6,7)), and some correct factually inaccurate statements (5,8). I already conceded on (2). Please head over there and let me know what you think. Thanks. Quietbritishjim (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I think that one thing that might have annoyed you (and FleetCommand) was that I deleted all the references. This is because all of them were first-party references (i.e. by the makers of MathType), which I thought wasn't allowed. I've now found out that an article "should be based around third-party references", but first-party references are still allowed in some circumstances. I'll say it: I was wrong!
But your main objection was that the current version says MathType is "compatible with 884 applications", whereas my edit makes it sound like that isn't true. That's because it really isn't true! Almost all of the apps in MathType's "works with..." database say things like "embed as an OLE object" or "insert as an image". I guess you can debate whether being able to insert an image counts as "compatibility with MathType", but my proposed article avoids using this language at all by describing precisely what MathType can do.
(By the way, this is actually a good thing, because OLE is supported by thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of applications, so supporting OLE is much better than supporting a few hundred individual applications. But whether it's good or bad is irrelevant, the important thing is documenting what happens accurately.)
You also said I removed features. Just about the only feature I removed was "copy and paste". I think this is included in being WYSIWYG, and is too basic to be mentioned on its own. If I saw a piece of software that listed "copy and paste" as a feature, I would read that as "no notable features" - even notepad supports copy and paste! Anyway, I clarified other features of MathType.
I hope you can have a quick look at my proposal and give some feedback. I've now spent much more time on this article than I care about this program! Thanks, Jim. Quietbritishjim (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps what I meant is that you removed a list of facts. I mean, you can fix them if you wish, but may I see what the page might look like should the proposed edit be made? LikeLakers2 (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, THANK YOU. I know Sinebot is doing its job, getting ridiculous pay, but I know that I forgot. I've only been a user for, like, 1.5 months. Sometimes I forget.
P.S: That's the second time I got that, so I'm kinda annoyed.--Solowing106 (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That template was added by the user with whom he is edit warring. Anyway, although Ksmdr had indeed reverted four times on the page (last time I looked), he had not done so within 24 hours - or anything close to 24 hours. So he hadn't technically broken 3RR - although one doesn't have to break 3RR to get blocked for edit warring. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor" (my emphasis). There has to be an editor involved - a fort or a country or an ethnicity or a political or historical belief can't be a conflict of interest in itself.
So for example, if we have reason to believe that one of the editors here owns one of the structures of which they are inserting images; or if we have reason to believe that one of them works for the tourism agency of one of the two countries involved; or if we have reason to believe that one of them is the nephew of someone who runs a shop selling ice cream immediately opposite the tourist attractions of which photos are being inserted; then we could suggest that they might have a conflict of interest. But, we have no reason to believe any of these things, so we can't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are going there. Well then, I guess I was wrong with the COI thing, but at least I had good reason to believe it was a COI problem, right? LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Akbar Khan89's behavior was so baffling that COI could be just as good as any other explanation :) It would be like edit-warring a photo of the Lakers' stadium into Template:History of Spain, just because, umm, Los Angeles was founded by people who were ethnically Spanish :) As you've probably seen, they've been blocked for 31 hours. Rather than COI, though, my explanation would be WP:PLAGUE! (Just an essay, and not quite as exciting as it sounds.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I was given this to revdelete at the same time as the other diff. Please read this to learn why I did not do the same twice - in particular the word "grossly". — Joseph Fox19:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi it would not matter if the IP asked to delete their own talk page or someone else did. The reason is that others should be able to read the warnings in the history. If the warnings are old, say over a year old then we could delete, but the ones here were new, and potentially relevent to the person or persons who use that IP address.
There may be other reasons to delete a talk page such as disclosure of information by a minor, or by accident, copyright violation or spam. For the more sensitive reasons you can email an admin or use IRC to prevent drawing the public's attention to the content. A user in good standing can also have the WP:right to vanish when they can get their talk page and user pages deleted. But this right does not apply to anonymous IPs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was an obvious vandalism only account because of the username and edits. Vandalism only accounts do not need any warnings. The editor was blocked by an admin as a vandalism only account. Joe Chill (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, LikeLakers2. I noticed Graeme Bartlett's post above. It applies to your suggestion to Shroffameen too: his user talk page is actually the only userspace page he normally can't have deleted. See WP:DELTALK. The rationale for this is that other users have posted on the page — which they normally haven't done on the rest of his userpages — and may need their own posts for evidence of something or other, or simply for copyright reasons. Perhaps you'd like to consider adding a note about this to Shroffameen? Regards, Bishonen | talk12:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Why did you add the "you may edit this page" text to Jimbo's userpage if you plan to revert any good-faith edits people make? Jebus989✰18:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverting it as Jimbo Wales put it that way. I had it at the bottom before, and Jimbo himself moved it to the top. I did say I was sorry in my edit summary, and mainly I didn't see much reason to have it back at the bottom when it was moved from the bottom before. LikeLakers2 (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC),,[reply]
Oh hey just checked out the page history. Did it have that part about me making stuff up about Wielvakia, almost crashing into a cactus, not hurting a fly?
If so, that was me, not logged on. I can see how you would think that was vandalism. If I were someone else, I'd think the same thing. Those, I meant to put there.
Acerca de la renuncia de Hernan Gomez como seleccionador de colombia, es bien conocido que aunque está cerca de concretarse la llegada de Martino, aún no se ha confirmado. Esto se hará esta semana, Saludos
It makes sense that "RFC" would stand for "Redirect from CamelCase," but {{RFC}} was never used to mean that, nor do I think anyone ever interpreted it to mean that. (The RFC template has been around for several years and has always been used in the Requests for Comment process.) As far as I can see, it's needless disambiguation. harej01:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily bad; I just thought it was weird. (And I asked you about it in case there was some context I didn't know about.) harej01:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that both you and Srobak are in the wrong in this situation; however, there are two major mistakes you made and you should strive not to make them again. Please read Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. Your behavior on Srobak's talk page was wholly unacceptable. In addition, in the course of your discussion you (intentionally?) fanned the flames. When you get into a dispute like the one you got into, it is often more helpful to back down and seek advice rather than furthering the problem.RyanVeseyReview me!14:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and say that you should not under any circumstances make an edit to someone's user page. Furthermore, do not modify someone's talk page posts. No modifying for grammar or anything. Any modification of someone else's content is exceedingly bad form and you have already been warned for the issue.RyanVeseyReview me!17:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your speedy deletion tag on Ksmdr's talk page. In the future, if a similar situation arises, remove the offending content and replace it with a welcome message. If the content is especially bad, find an administrator and ask them to do a revision deletion.RyanVeseyReview me!12:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will. Just in case you didn't know, I actually was told of this by an admin before. I forget where it is, (if its non-archived or archived) but still. Thanks for telling me, however. I appreciate any and all messages. LikeLakers2 (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the archive, and the only thing I saw was the speedy decline. Unless the admin didn't include "ksmdr" in the message because that is what I searched for.RyanVeseyReview me!12:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello LikeLakers2, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead, use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari10:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, It's Hector Neeleman of Wielvakia. Aka, Solowing106 (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC). I'm saying bye, since I'll probably be blocked out by DS. Me and you had good times. See ya.[reply]
Hello, I noticed you and User:Ezekiel53746 have an apparent friendship on Wikipedia. As you may or may not know, he is about to start a mentorship programme with me as his guide. As part of this agreement, I have asked that Ezekiel cuts down on his using user talk pages as a place to chit-chat. A bit of chat won't hurt anyone, but as he is on a tightrope and could well be blocked again, I am asking if you would be willing to help me by also agreeing not to use Ezekiel's talk page for that purpose. Thanks, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Funny thing, I apparently also did something for a admin as well today! His talkpage editnotice was a bit graphically bugged, (see this for what I mean) and I eventually tried removing the second line from it, since it was kinda redundant to use that, and IE9 now seems to show it correctly in the edit mode for his userpage. It looked fine before AND after when viewing his talkpage editnotice on the page it was transcluded from. I, of course, did let him know of it, however. And I always don't mind if the user, like you for your userboxes, reverts my attempt(s) to fix something that is wrong with something. Again, I have no problem with trying to help! LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LikeLakers2. You have new messages at Barts1a's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Any specific reason why you find it necessary to have every single page of yours opted in for angry mode? You're taking up 50% of the angry mode page at the moment. Might it be easier and better for general vandalism detection if you just had your various userpages semiprotected? N419BH03:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed someone said you have a friendship with Ezekiel. Would you also define your relationship with Solowing that way? tilde tilde tilde tilde 67.1.95.119 (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would never spam it. I just wished to notify you of that. However, you still have the right to remove content from your own talk page like you did. Just make sure you follow the guidelines when you do so. The main two guidelines I would like to link you to for this are WP:UP#CMT and WP:TPO. Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 13:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why bring them up in the first place? If I'm not breaking them, why remind me to follow them? Mind your own goddamned business and never message me again. Colofac (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I bring them up because they are related to user talk pages in general. And, while I will leave you alone, perhaps you should know that saying "Mind your own goddamned business" like that could be considered a rude thing to some people. I'm not bothered by it, but you still shouldn't say that, as it could be percieved as a threat if you went much farther. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 13:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes. You were warned about interfering on user talk pages , if you carry on altering my talk page, interfering in my actions, or otherwise harassing me, I will have no choice but to reopen this case against you. I hope this is clear to you, because I am not going to continue discussing this or any matter with you. The next time you alter, edit, post a warning or otherwise interfere with my page, it will be straight back to ani. Colofac (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LikeLakers2 ... if you've asked him to stay off your talkpage, then it's only polite for you to stay off his talkpage as well. Especially when he's blocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you comment or even decline a request at UAA, you don't need to mark it as a (Non-administrator comment) - it doesn't really matter! Warmly, Kudu~I/O~13:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not informing you of this matter. I appreciate the understanding you displayed in your comments at ANI. Quite frankly, you have given us absolutely no reason for concern, but interaction bans must be a two way street - otherwise the first party can antagonize, and the second cannot respond - and the users of concern in this matter need to stop discussing you and your past with them. This ANI did not start with a concern about your activities, nor does its resolution express concern about you. Again, my apologies for the oversight in not informing you when it became clear that you would be effected. If you have anything to add in this matter, or any concerns or questions about the ANI discussion or resolution, please feel free to post at the AN/I thread. VanIsaacWScontribs02:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no worries. I wouldn't be much to care for the result of something like that, since I have not had much, if at all, in the way of problems like that anyway. I would have voted Support whether or not I was actually notified anyway, as well. Again, I have no problems with this. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 02:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my mistake. I hadn't protected it correctly, and your removal of the protection notice brought that to my attention. Thanks. Ground Zero | t15:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, LikeLakers2. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Per WP:BLANKING editors are allowed to remove warnings including block notices from their talk page.
You are WAY over 3RR on a number of pages today. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits and if you are reverting someone's edit you are expected to know the relevant policies.
To be honest, and no, I will NOT be abusing this fact, but it doesn't exactly matter, as Twinkle includes rollback functions, which are usable even to users without rollback flags, meaning there isn't that much of a point to removing it when I will still have a technical rollback ability, due to Twinkle. Again, I won't abuse this fact, but I just want to let you know, as my reason for requesting it was because Twinkle had it anyway, so there was no reason not to have it anyway. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought maybe cascading protection would protect all the templates listed there, but apparently that's only for transcluded templates. No time to do all of them individually, so I'll have to let another admin take care of it. Dreadstar☥04:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I can try making a page of all of them transcluded, but hidden. Then you could try cascading protecting them. I'm at school right now though, so I won't be able to do it right now. I'll try to remember to do so after school though. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 10:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The criterion for speedy a7 is much lower than lack of notability , it is having no possible claim to importance. Saying someone is on a sports team with an article in Wikipedia is a claim to possible importance; the proper course for a team whose members don't meet WP:N, is to use WP:PROD. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
which appears inside of the speedy deletion (
