User talk:Gogo Dodo

Welcome to my talk page! I will reply on your talk page unless you prefer otherwise as usually noted on your talk page. If you are an editor without an account, I will reply here. When leaving messages, please keep these tips in mind: Use a descriptive subject/headline. If you are asking a question about an article, please tell me which article you are referring to. Please do not add your message to another editor's conversation unless you are commenting on the same topic. Start a new section, unless... If you are continuing a conversation with me, please edit the relevant section instead of starting a new section. Click here to leave me a message

List of poker variants

Not exactly sure why you deleted my Poker Game, "Spade and Hand" I read the common reasons, still not sure which part is wrong. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delven1966 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Dez Bryant

its true look it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddhaboy23 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sir, Plz Dont Delete My Article.

You Just Check That Article.. plz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnets (talk • contribs) 06:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning my mess

I tried to help out a user who made their userpage in the mainspace, but gave it a double 'user:' prefix. You very promptly cleaned up my mess. Good job. Piguy101 (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Ravishyam Bangalore

Hi there. I noticed you removed the addition of this user at Permanent account number and he has reverted you calling it disruptive. He does the same on Aadhaar and Unique Identification Authority of India. I have reverted all the promotional edits that he has added, but he still keeps reverting them. Can you take a look? Thanks, — LeoFrank  ^Talk 04:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@LeoFrank: I was reverting some spam from a different editor, though on closer inspection, the Permanent account number has far too many external inline links which I will be removing shortly. It appears that Ravishyam Bangalore has ownership issues with the articles that they edit, blindly reverting any edits, and edit warring to get back to their preferred version. Should they return, I recommend reporting them to WP:ANI or WP:ANEW as appropriate. WP:ANI would probably be a better place since the issue seems to be long running and probably needs a longer explanation than a straight 3RR violation. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Time for a range block?

Pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oglesruins -- Moxy (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits just a moment ago on Jonathan Wilkes

The most recent diffs weren't showing up for me for some reason, so thank you for fixing the problem (I was still seeing the vandalism). I was trying to undo the vandalism. Sorry. Dustin (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks again. Dustin (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

sepp blatter

I prefer my version. What are your reasons for taking out the fact that both havelnage and blatter are widely discredited for their financial mismanagement? Is it that you don't know that to be the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbobsky (talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you show me where these rules are?

Are there rules for my User Page? If so can you show me them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhD Tomorrow (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain the end of this note?

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

02:22, 24 May 2014 Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted page User:Akabluey (Mass deletion of pages added by .wog-wog: Vandalism)

Who is .wog-wog: Vandalism ?

Akabluey (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Akabluey (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion of "Metropolis Rugby Club" Article

Sorry, this is a continuation of my last post...

Being that Metropolis plays at the same National Level as OMBAC...Why would our article be deleted and OMBACs be accepted?

Notability Guidelines state....An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

So how was OMBACs sources verified? thank you. Akabluey (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thnx...I just presented the same question to another editor, Anne, using 2 rugby clubs...read below about the inconsistencies of your Copyright Rules.

Deletion of Metropolis Rugby Club Article?

Hi Anne, I'm trying to grasp why the Metropolis Rugby Club Article was deleted for Copyright infringements and Notability Guidelines. So yes, I'm going to pick on one of Metropolis's foes, OMBAC, or Old Mission Beach Athletic Club to help me understand the differences. If I correctly understand the Notability Guidelines, an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Well, OMBACs members had to have crafted and recorded their clubs history not unlike Metropolis, thru hand written journals provided by Old Boys or retired players. My question then is How is their non verifiable content accepted and ours then denied? As a matter of fact here is a bit of History, OMBAC was founded in 1966, and Metropolis thru the merger of 2 clubs, can trace its founding back before the 60s, BUT that would be added later when those Articles are written and then linked.

My second point involves copyright infringements, again I'm going to pick on OMBAC, If you go to OMBACs website and look at their History and compare it to their Wikipedia Articles History you have the same copy, word for word, and not one footnote or reference is noted on their article back to the website. So why are the same rules for copyright infringements applied differently in identical cases?

My point is that both teams have a very rich history in the formation and the modern growth of the sport of rugby here in the states, and both have to rely on present non-active club members such as myself, to record this history from hand written journals of the past... there are no third party sources, i.e. newspapers did not cover rugby back in the 60's, websites were not around until what the late 90's and references i.e. encyclopedias may cover what rugby is but they certainly do not cover the history of USA rugby clubs.

Hey, thank you for your time, have a great evening and I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Akabluey (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)