User talk:Hannibalormaybejustrex/Archive 2

Stephen Pound

Re the editing taking place on this article: it seems justified to comment on Mr Pound's career as a comedian as he is after all in show business as well as being in politics. I would support the reference to his appearance on Have I Got News for You as confirming his career as a comedian and the comment that Punch-like he laughs at his own jokes: both comments are justified because they are true and they add impartiality to an article which at present is too much in favour of the subject to be unbiased. Marktunstill 17:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing links in Super Furry Animals

Hello, I'm new and don't know protocol here. But I noticed you removed the links I placed to Super Furry Animals sources, and no reason given. I wrote for their official website (superfurry.com), and have run a discussion list for over ten years, and the website that's been a primary source of info. I linked to the MySpace page I run which is functioning as an unofficial news source and temporary home of the website until it relaunches. --Karenzweb 03:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen Football Club

Come on all those trophies had merit especially Aberdeen's East Scottish Reserve League trophy in season 1983-84 and their glorious wins in the Scottish League 'C' Division in seasons 1952-53, 1954-55. ;) --172.212.231.48 20:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Americans Knew

Thanks for the copyedits. Regards, Asterion^talk 12:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BMW Championship (PGA Tour)

Greetings ...

Some days ago, you put a CLEANUP tag on this golf page »» BMW Championship.

Since then, the page has been edited a few times by myself and at least one person.

Please check the page to see if it looks better to you. Feel free to make any suggestions.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank

Fgf2007 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marsden on Fox

Why are you reverting it and putting garbage on my talk page? Marsden just started on the new late-night Fox News show, the Red Eye. Check the link I posted. Assume Good Faith!!!!!209.217.93.117 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Milton

It wasn't consensus, there were good points put both sides. No consensus = default exclude, in cases of links to attack sites on WP:BLP articles. But on mature reflection the problem comes form its being referenced in the para on minor spats in the election; that is now far enough in the past that the whole para can go, which makes the link unnecessary as supporting data. It was trivial stuff anyway. Guy (Help!) 09:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JzG is lying. There was clear consensus to include the paragraph and a link. See this mailing list post. Fys. Ta fys aym. 09:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So as the thread shows, there were opinions on both sides, and the support for inclusion at all was weak at best and solely on the basis of the supporting para on the trivial mention of the dispute during the campaign (needless to say Fys' summary of the thread is out of line with that, I wonder why he linked ot his summary and not to the head of the thread?). Solution: remove the trivial mention, no problem. Majority <> consensus, as Fys should know since he was a sysop once. He was desysopped before WP:BLP I think so may be less up to date on the current feelings re living individuals and the care which must be taken there. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

I replied on my talk page to your comments. --tjstrf talk 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tags

Please do not remove these tags without establishing any notability - the last 2 Donna related ones do not establish any notability of the individual. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 08:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So ignore me then - have speedied them myself Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 08:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion

Perhaps, but it was also two sentences long. I personally don't feel that two sentences stating her birthday and her position in the band is quite enough text to qualify as a stub. If you disagree, you could always find another admin to undelete; it's not something I'm going to fight about.--§hanel 08:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Thank you

Sure thing! It appeared rather straightforward that notability had been asserted, and I welcome you to add or re-add content to the articles gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your evidence on the Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war RfAr

Your last diff link is wrong; it's a duplicate of the previous one. --cesarb 19:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have fixed it now. Catchpole 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your speculation about Gaillimh. Generally, if someone has elected to m:Right to vanish and change their name, we should not be publishing that person's identity. I assure you that the arbitrators know all they need to know, and if they want to disclose the information (assuming your guess is correct) they should be the ones to do so. Thanks. Thatcher131 12:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse what Thatcher131 says. I happened to see your evidence before he deleted it, and was actually wondering whether or not to revert it. I don't know what reason Gaillimh had for changing his username, but it may well have been because someone had made a connection between his previous name and his real life identity. People may argue for or against permitting an administrator to change username quietly, but if he does do so, and if you feel that something regarding his previous identity is relevant to this arbitration case, you should submit the evidence by private e-mail to the arbitration committee. I believe an arbitrator has already suggested to Gaillimh that he (Gaillimh) might consider allowing his previous identity to be made known, but if he doesn't do so, and if the Committee doesn't decide to overrule his wishes, then other users should definitely not be posting such evidence in public. ElinorD (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a very similar statement of the evidence deleted to the ArbCom mailing list three days ago - see [1]. I recieved "Thanks for bringing it to the attention of the whole committee." from FloNight as a response, so I presume they got it. Just as a note, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Mcilwraith

Please think carefully before recommending an article for deletion, as you did with Alan Mcilwraith. As the comments at [2] show, there is a strong consensus in favour of keeping the article. Recommending an article for deletion without clear grounds leads to unnecessary work for other users.--Ianmacm 13:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AGF. Catchpole 13:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The decision may have been in good faith, but has little to recommend it.--Ianmacm 13:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your restore

Please revert it, I explained all my reasons on the talk page.--Urthogie 16:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bring back the fact tag, but I'd like you to remove the rest of your edit per the talk page.--Urthogie 23:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any ref better than no ref?

Hello. You reverted my edit to Critical Mass in which I removed a link to a forum as a "reference". You claim in the edit summary that "any ref better than no ref". I have not heard of this on WP, and I'm wondering if this is simply your opinion, or if you could point to a WP policy page (or perhaps a discussion of the issue) that supports your claim. In my edit summary, I specifically indicate Wikipedia:External_links, links normally to be avoided #10, which clearly indicates that forums should be avoided. With forums as our basis, we could add all kinds of garbage to WP, and I'm sure that is not your intent. Cheers, Doctormatt 23:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Hewitt

Hi. I checked the talk page as recommended by the NPOV tag but there was no mention of any POV dispute, so I removed the tag. If there's any particular reason why you added the tag, please re-add it, but make sure you mention what your gripe is on the tag page also. Cheers, --Rebroad 17:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Blanchflower

Just want to make sure you are aware of the WP:BLP policy. Anonymously quoted criticisms of the sort that you have added constitute poorly sourced negative material and are to be removed. Incorrectly attributing such criticisms to the Telegraph itself is doubly inappropriate. If you want to include criticism of his voting record (as opposed to just describing his voting record) it should add to content of the article and be sourced to an actual person or organization. Trite, anonymouos comments do not meet this threshhold. Savidan 16:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to keep all criticism of Blanchflower out of the article. I would suggest that an anonymous quote which isn't specific to Blanchflower (i.e. "idiot in search of a village") is not a notable criticism of Blanchflower, or particularly well-attributed one, and thus one that does not rise to the threshold of WP:BLP. We have no way of knowing who said that and thus no way of knowing if it is a signficant criticism. Savidan 02:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Lobby

I am considering to post a RfC on the Jewish Lobby article. I think the whole article has become a propaganda piece and that the main propagandists are hiding behind WP policy on OR. Seems their agenda is to label Israel-critics as conspiratoric anti-semites. I have tried to reason, but to me it seems that they are ok with this standard of the article. The RfC would be intended to draw attention to the poor standard of the article, but also to the problem of the OR-policy in cases as these. Clearly, my own five minute OR on google shows that the term has some times been used "neturally" (without referring to a conspiracy), and anyone who tried would find the same, but I can't put it in the article because of WP:OR. It is quite comical actually: the whole article is about removing the etymological meaning from the expression: A lobby group that is jewish. These do exist, I believe, but it's getting hard to talk about them if this article is true. What do you think. Should someone place a RfC on this article? Is it a waste of time? pertn 10:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I agree with you, as you will see at the JL talk page, that the article is som sub-standard that it exposes itself and gives most readers ample warning not to trust wikipedia in cases where Israel is debated. However, I feel that the policy and some editors should be given attention. How one of them is even administrator shows that WP has problems when it comes to guarding itself against motivated propaganda efforts. I will take your advice and let it be for now. It has to do with energy. But the article should be tagged. As it is now it defaces wikipedia's credibility. pertn 06:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I just read through the whole Jewish Lobby talk page and the article is as messy as ever and needs work which I don't have time to do. FYI Jayjig stopped editing as of August 3 2007. See User_talk:Jayjig It seems that there are less obstructionist people editing page now. Someone needs to get rid of that Jewish lobby (disambiguation) page and the page should reflect ALL the uses. I seems absurd that even references to "Jewish lobbies" where Jews lobby together on legitimate issues like anti-Semitism within a country or against any discriminatory laws against Jews would NOT be covered in such an article. I wish SOMEONE would just go back in there and clean it up.

Carol Moore 03:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

John Reid (politician)

Hi Catchpole, thanks for the assumption of good faith when reverting my change! Always nice to be told "don't remove sources blindly". Before removing the link I read the blog, and I looked at the section that it referenced and I could see little to link the two. Dale's blog also includes comments like "What a disgusting individual Reid is." That Iain Dale is a notable person himself seems thin reason to link the blog. Why not link to something a little more useful, like say, the news article itself[3] ? But I'll leave that judgement up to you. Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 16:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet Secretary

Please see my ammendments to Cabinet Secretary. Please improve as appropriate. Ta. --Mais oui! 10:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of SNP MPs and current Scottish MPs cats

Could you have a look at this CFD nomination. It has been up for a week, and only 2 people have commented on it (amazingly). Could you please consider the discussion and contribute, because it would be a bit pathetic if this CFD were closed with almost zero comment. --Mais oui! 17:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot

I noticed that Smackbot changes External link to External links without regard to the number of links in the section. If there is only one link, I would prefer the singular to be used. Is there a reason why this is not the case? Catchpole 10:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a number of reasons. (And of course there are a number of reasons that the singular is good too.) Wikipedia:External links is the guideline, and the main reason is style. We use plural for both "External Links" and "References" (and I guess "Notes") in the same way that books have a "Contents" page even if there's only one chapter. Subsidiary reasons include that people often add links without updating the headings, and consistency. If you trawl through the talk page you'll see the various arguments come up on either side. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 19:24 30 May 2007 (GMT).

How hard would it be to write a regular expression match in JS that checks if the section has one or more links, and that swaps "External link" for "External links" accordingly? Not hard at all. I have it on my Wiki, but I'm not about to share the code here. Why? Oppressive regime, hateful administrators, politically motivated leadership, etc. Kuntbunnie 16:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Campbell (video game journalist)

This article recently had most of its content removed, and for good reason: none if it was sourced, and it is biographical information on a living person. The article needs a rewrite, and so the only information left in the article was that which could be sourced.

You are the second person to revert this change, you did not give a reason, and you clearly did not read the talk page to find the reason for the change. The article now as it stands is completely unsourced (your revert removed the only source that existed) and full of ^{[citation needed]} tags. "Topic Blanking" can be legitimate for biog articles, as the Wikipedia guidelines show. Please allow this change to go ahead so that the article can be built from a good foundation, with information added at the same time as sources. --Jumble Jumble 13:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Catchpole/Anonymous friends

A page in your user space is up for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Catchpole/Anonymous friends. Thanks. -N 17:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that. Thanks for your note. Catchpole 18:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bhoys from Seville

Thank you for your contribution on the above AfD. Your time and effort is much appriciated. regards--Vintagekits 01:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Catchpole, with all due respect, I did what I thought I had to do to protect our volunteer contributors. My e-mail (like my talk page) is enabled, and I'm happy to discuss this with you. I think I understand why you wrote what you wrote: from one perspective, it makes total sense, and it wouldn't surprise me if others expressed to me the same sentiments. However, that is not the only perspective: the other is that of a contributor (a star contributor, in fact) who is relentlessly harassed on- and off-wiki. We can discuss and debate these principles further, but in the meantime, I'd like to err on the side of protecting our volunteer contributors. If this includes censorship/suppression, I accept responsibility for that imperfection, and for that choice. You know where to find me, and where to hold me accountable.Proabivouac 12:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh dude

He is asking English Wikipedia admins to unprotect a page on Russians in Kazakhistan at the Russian Wikipedia. We can't do shit for him and I told him so on his user talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't do anything for him. I think it's rude to remove good faith requests for help. Catchpole 11:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that we can do for him, and he was posting that on any project page he could find. It's a request for help that no one can fulfill, and particularly because he's trying to further a dispute at ru at en.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 11:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being hasty and presumptuous. Just because you are unable to help doesn't mean that nobody can. What harm is there in leaving this request for 24 hours until it is archived, so some of our Russian-speaking editors can determine for themselves what the dispute is. Catchpole 11:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend that you don't do anything that resembles disruption at the Administrator's Noticeboard of all places. It's such a bad idea that I can't even begin to describe how bad an idea it is. There are plenty of ways to ask for help with issues and some of them may even be received sympathetically. Have you tried, for example, seeking help at a relevant WikiProject? --Dweller 11:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean, I was just trying to restore some comments I thought were rudely removed. Catchpole 11:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. It's just that giving an appearance of edit warring at that page is not advisable. As with anywhere else round here, when two of you disagree, you're better off discussing it on a talk page than reverting each other. At AN where admins with itchy blocking fingers sometimes gather, it's particularly advisable. --Dweller 11:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyDeathSpace.com

Hi Catchpole. I added references to MyDeathSpace.com. Please use those references to write the article and please use them in footnotes in the article. Thanks -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pov flag

Please, read the talk page before reverting
I put the flag and discussed this and it was removed twice without discussion by IP146.
Could you please revert yourself ? Thank you...
Alithien 11:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-> see here [4] Alithien 11:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep referring to previous discussions on the talk page. However the article has been substantially re-written since then. You need to say what POV issues you have with the article as it currently stands. Catchpole 11:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article didn't substantially change. It was reorganised.

And even if it had, a flag cannot be removed unitaterally : IP146 should have discussed this. As you can see he never argued that in fact.

And finally, the reason I invoke in the talk page is about the title and I also refer to other people who do not agree with this.

Alithien 11:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I can write them again on the talk page : [5].
I don't understand your behaviour. Alithien 11:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping

Would it be possible for you to go a day without a complaint about PalestineRemembered? Catchpole 14:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are you an admin? if yes, then i respectfully request seriously going over the last ANI instead of jumping at me for asking his repeated harassments and violations addressed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of England international footballers

Congratulations on getting rid of that rotten merger! What an abomination it was. Bentley Banana (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, I'm not against a merge of that type, but the execution needs to be better next time. I cannot abide sortable wiki-tables that do not sort properly. Catchpole (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comments above rather offensive. I spent a considerable amount of time trying to arrive at a sortable table and I fail to understand your comments that "The sorting doesn't work properly anyway". Before we get into a spat about this can I invite you to expand on your reasons at the WP-football talk page. Thanks.--Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Bryne

I deleted the link as it was added under the title "shambolic". The video itself is titled "Imigration shambles", which I regard as a loaded term. The User who added it is a frequent vandal, and I was reverting their edits. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kateryna Karsak

Kateryna Karsak, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Kateryna Karsak satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kateryna Karsak and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Kateryna Karsak during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rtphokie (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]