User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive/07
experiment
[edit]When I changed the James May page, I was experimenting to find out how efficient the hive mind of wikipedia is. Also, it was hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.105.195 (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Help! (film) take two
[edit]OK. Memory time again. In the scene where Ahme is about to inject Ringo with the shrinking potion, she tells Ringo to be brave. She turns to the camera and says to the effect that if he had been courageous, none of this would have happened. I forget the exact words but that's the gist of it. Howzzat? Phyllis1753 (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that you've interpreted something as being "hot under the collar". No such intent. I also added a summary of that episode to the plot synopsis because it is important to the film's plot line. Cheers Phyllis1753 (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was ready to growl and tell you to get a video, watch the movie a few times and stop pestering me. :) All is forgiven! Cheers Phyllis1753 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Aww, I was kidding about the "pestering"... Anyway, your day was strange?? The last MONTH was strange for me so I can well understand about recovery!! Take your time with the email. Cheers --Phyllis1753 (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Help with Talk Pages
[edit]You seem to be really experienced with editing, so I had a couple questions:
- is it proper to delete "talking points" on discussion pages that have been added to the article or become "final?" I just think that a discussion shouldn't be cluttered by outdated information.
- how do you add "for other uses" at the top of an article. Under Will Smith, it makes no reference to other persons named Will Smith, including the American actor.
Thanks!Jophus00 (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I'm glad you point that page out. Jophus00 (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
81.145.242.67 is at it again; you may be interested to read User talk:Nlu#"Toothless Tiger" warnings Pdfpdf (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. For the first time in at least 3 months he's just done two useful edits:
- Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. Now, perhaps, I should get on with my life. (Or failing that, get some sleep.)
- Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. Now, perhaps, I should get on with my life. (Or failing that, get some sleep.)
G77
[edit]Frankly, there is something strange about G77's input so far. S/he claims to be new to wikipedia, but is rather proficient. And S/he claims to be proficient in criminal law especially as it pertains to arson and burglary, but seems to be sophomoric in regard to modern disposition pertaining to those. Lonmower (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no policy. :-) This is just something that's done when protecting pages with large histories that are normally move-protected - a move after the protection expires would be absolutely disastrous. east.718 at 03:01, February 18, 2008
- Nope. If you change protection levels from anything without an expiry (i.e. move=sysop) to anything with an expiry (edit=autoconfirmed, move=sysop in an hour), all protections will expire when the second one does (semi and move will be gone in an hour). east.718 at 03:07, February 18, 2008
I can has thankspam?
[edit]
Quick, let's delete the front page!
|
Advice please
[edit]The order of release of Heart (band)'s first four albums is open to interpretation, and, this being WP, two "camps" have formed supporting different interpretations. One camp is making changes, and explaining their rationale. The other camp is reverting those changes, without explanation.
The situation has degenerated into silliness. Example (from Dreamboat Annie):
- 20:21, 19 February 2008 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) m (5,009 bytes) (Why won't you explain yourself?) (undo)
- 03:34, 19 February 2008 69.139.68.133 (Talk) (4,987 bytes) (undo)
- 22:36, 18 February 2008 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) m (5,009 bytes) (We can play this silly game until one of us gets bored or annoyed. OR, you can explain on the talk page why you don't agree with me. Who knows, I might agree with you.) (undo)
- 09:54, 18 February 2008 69.139.68.133 (Talk) (4,987 bytes) (undo)
- 21:28, 17 February 2008 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) m (5,009 bytes) (rv vandalism - Nothing has changed since 8 February. You were wrong then, and you're still wrong now. If you don't agree, discuss it on the talk page. Repeated vandalism won't solve the problem.) (undo)
- 20:01, 17 February 2008 69.139.68.133 (Talk) (4,987 bytes) (undo)
- 20:01, 17 February 2008 69.139.68.133 (Talk) (5,008 bytes) (undo)
- 19:55, 8 February 2008 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) m (5,003 bytes) (The initial release of Magazine was before Little Queen.) (undo)
- 09:23, 8 February 2008 69.139.68.133 (Talk) (4,981 bytes) (undo)
I'm not achieving anything; the "sensible" thing for me to do would be to just walk away - after all, who cares?
What's your advice? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to keep bothering you ...
FYI - Magazine was released twice; first time in 1977 (before Little Queen), then Heart got an injunction, bits were re-recorded, then it was released again in 1978 (after Little Queen). Perhaps it should be called "Magazine 1977" and "Magazine 1978", and release order should be "Dreamboat Annie", "Magazine 1977", Little Queen", "Magazine 1978", "Dog and Butterfly".
I started writing that with tongue-in-cheek, but now I'm thinking the idea it has merit! That's a worry - I think I'm getting obsessed by this. Yes, it is time to walk away.
Many thanks for your help and advice. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bloody good idea! Are you going to join me? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- but I will join you in spirit later - OK. Make sure it's a single malt.
- It's midnight here; now that I've finished that beer, I'm off to bed - It's a hot night, currently 80F / 25C. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Revolver US-UK Version Differences
[edit]Greetings ....
Just noticed your re-wording of my addition to the Revolver album page. I was curious as to what you found uncomfortable with my wording.
Thanx-A-Lot, Frank Fgf2007 (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
69.139.68.133
[edit]Hi "Rod". This 69.139.68.133 person is quite a personality. The only stuff that gets posted to the talk page are complaints and warnings, and the page then gets blanked within 24 hours of it being posted. Almost every second edit history entry on the talk page says "69.139.68.133 (Talk) (empty) (←Blanked the page) (undo)".
There never seems to be any response, and the requests and warnings seem to make no difference to 69.139.68.133's behaviour. Also, your statement you should not be blanking warnings left here which you made at 23:31, 19 February 2008 (my time zone) was blanked at 16:00, 20 February 2008 (my time zone).
However, there has been one very notable change of behaviour. Edit comments have been left on two of the recent edits! These are the ONLY edit comments EVER left by 69.139.68.133 since edits started on 2 January 2007, and there have been thousands of edits!! So, huge congratulations on the success of your message!
And thanks for your help. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind - snarky comments are a vast improvement on no comments at all! but I don't feel it's useful to ... - I agree. ... but I am keeping an eye on this. - That's good to hear. Thanks. By-the-way: I hope you enjoyed the single malt. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- (Laughing in disbelief!) You really have to wonder about some people, don't you. I was going to say "It will be interesting to see what happens in 55 hours". I'll change that to "I wonder if his new pair of socks will be of the same colour?" Again, thanks for your diligence. Regards, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Shaka
[edit]Block of User:Boomgaylove
[edit]Hi Rodhullandemu (love the username, by the way, brings back fond childhood memories :-) I see you have blocked User:Boomgaylove. While I agree with the block, I am not sure that an indefinite block is appropriate. Usually indef blocks are only used for vandalism-only accounts or to enforce community bans. While I agree that Boomgaylove's recent edits have been very problematic - I blocked him myself recently - he does have a number of constructive contributions, so he cannot be classed as a vandalism-only account. I would certainly support a block of 1 wekk to 1 month given his recent disruption, but I think indef is unduly harsh and not really supported by conventions. I won't change the block length myself, but I would ask you to take another look at it. Best, Gwernol 02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I confirm that my freenode nick is Rodhullandemu
Revert
[edit]Okay I understand why you reverted the part about the picture; I do not understand why you reverted the bad formatting and improper capitalization. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Done Thanks for posting on my talk and not simply reverting. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your interesting articles
[edit]I already have that it's a user page. Can you suggest another tab for me to put on? — NuclearVacuum (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "all I'm doing"? And can you recommend me a tab to put on them? — NuclearVacuum (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am glad that you like my work ^_^ I also designed my own warning and placed it on both articles. Hope they explain this whole thing. — NuclearVacuum (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
[edit]Thanks for taking the time to comment on my question at WPANI.
Just to be clear, are you telling me that the articles were tagged for deletion? No one gave me a heads-up that they were tagged for deletion. I didn't see them on my watchlist. When I realized Kingboyk had deleted eight articles in one session it seemed most likely that Kingboyk had deleted them without any discussion, without recognizing his or her deletion was an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
You asked if I placed a {{hangon}} on these articles.
For what it is worth I have had an article deleted even though I put a {{hangon}} on it. Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism was deleted between the time I placed the hangon and when I completed my note on the talk page explaining why it shouldn't be deleted.
This was, in my opinion, a clear example of why the wikipedia's deletion procedures need reform.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I got your reply.
- Since I got your note I see those articles have been userified. None of the eight articles were deleted as a result of a tag a new page patroller. Most of those eight articles were over a year old. And, if the admin restored them correctly, none of them had a deletion tag applied prior to deletion.
- Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism was tagged by a new page patroller. Yes, I have had the suggestion that I should prepare all my articles in User space. The deletion policies urge nominators to hold back from nominating articles for deletion shortly after creation specifically to accommodate people with cranky old computers who have to save often.
- I wish new page patrollers were more compliant with this policy recommendation.
- I had three dozen references I was going to use in this article. I knew adding each one to the article would take me about ten minutes each. It had exactly one reference, because I stopped working on the article to work on the note on the talk page.
- The deleting admin didn't bother to look past the first screenful.
- The nominator applied some kind of cleanup tag, and applied a speedy deletion tag, all within the first minute after the article was deleted.
- When I ask hasty nominators and hasty deleting admins why they are in such a hurry, if they can bother giving a civil reply, they say some variation of: "I know the rules. But if I fully complied with them, it would cut my efficiency to a fraction. So I skip steps."
- Needless to say I think this justification of quantity over quality is a huge mistake.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll let you know the next time I come across a quantity over quality contributor. Geo Swan (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
User talk:81.145.242.67 (again)
[edit]Hi "Rod". I saw your message. Sure. No problem.
However, I'm confused about a few things.
- User:Zzuuzz decided to put {{dynamicIP|BT/AOL}} on the talk page. To me it seems a very arrogant and condescending message, and it seems like it's addressed to you, so it should have been put on your talk page, not the IP page. Or am I missing something?
- More importantly, I was wondering when you unblocked, because Cluebot left a message on the IP talk page:
- 04:15, 25 February 2008 ClueBot (Talk | contribs) (7,062 bytes) (Warning 81.145.242.67 - #1) (undo)
- If you unblocked after that time, how did the IP do the edit?
- If you unblocked before, it didn't take the IP very long before he did something that even a robot could detect!
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I didn't unblock this guy, his one-week block lapsed. they guy I unblocked was the one who had been changing theHeart releases around without explanation. He seems to be quiet at the moment which is good. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So, I'm getting myself confused, aren't I. You're talking about User talk:69.139.68.133 - Yes? Well, same answer: Hi "Rod". I saw your message. Sure. No problem. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile ...
[edit]Re: 81.145.242.67, see above, and:
- What's Zzuuzz talking about?
- It looks like the one week block didn't make much, if any, difference to 81.145.242.67's behaviour. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks. Regards,Pdfpdf (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Scientologists and 9/11
[edit]I wrote a post earlier that was removed, but this is the jist of it: Scientologists were directly responsible for 9/11, both in terms of planning and execution. So, this article needs to be re-written from the ground up to reflect this fact. All right? OK.--Radarealywarning (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Shameless characters
[edit]I've begun the merge of all the Shameless characters articles. I'll keep on with it I guess, but if you happen to be online at the moment, take a look at List of characters from Shameless and let me know if you think its going to be too long... Jdcooper (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly, eventually, I'm using it to keep my house in order for the main one at the moment, plus I didn't know how to deconstruct the table. (Formatting pygmy, you see). Everything will be neat in the end. Happy Earthquake Day, by the way. Jdcooper (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Unnecessary revert
[edit]Not sure why you saw a need to revert my very minor addition to an already speculation-laden section of a discussion behind Electronic Arts logo meaning. I've played Electronic Arts games since the days of M.U.L.E., and in those days it was a fairly common explanation of the logo: E, A, and our planet. Saying that it was removed as speculation is silly, since that section is peppered with 'citation needed' tags. As if my 25 years experience with the subject matter is any less significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.168.223 (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Bomb threat
[edit]Hey, just FYI a detective from BC police contacted me with questions regarding the bomb threat. Looks like everything may not be okay like we guessed. If i hear back from him I will give you an email. Tiptoety talk 23:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- You got email! Tiptoety talk 00:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
James May
[edit]Hi, thanks for commenting to me about why you changed my edit. All I did was change an upper case 'a' to a lower case 'a', but I mistakenly did the edit in the contribution linked to me in april of last year (http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=James_May&diff=194647766&oldid=121405148), thus undoing several major edits done since then. My apologies and thanks for correcting this.User talk:HagenaarsDotNu 14:10 February 2008 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I said it wasn't replaceable, but somebody else keeps saying it is, which is why I'm removing the tag. So I won't stop, unless I see some concrete evidence that it is. And by evidence, I don't mean false promises that somebody's going to make a new one and never does. ----DanTD (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Your argument is not correct, and neither is NE2's. NE2 has added the following claim "NY 135 is shown extending past the stubs on the empty right-of-way, with grade separations at Neptune Avenue and an extended Cedar Street, and merging into the Wantagh State Parkway via a single Y interchange" However I saw no such sentence in either the Wantagh State Parkway article, nor the New York State Route 135. Furthermore, he keeps insisting that a replacemnet can be made. "Can be made" doesn't mean "is available." ----DanTD (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neither of you get it. This image is currently the only evidence on Wikipedia that the proposed extension of NY 135 was going to be extended to Wantagh State Parkway. Too often there have been similar images that served as evidence of road proposals and former interchange configurations that were unjustifibly deleted with the false promises that they could be replaced, but never were replaced. Even if the sentence that NE2 claimed one of the articles contained existed, the sentences alone don't provide concrete evidence to back them up. This image, and others that were deleted in the past do. ----DanTD (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I can make the distinction, which is why I'm trying to keep the image here. ----DanTD (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Neither of you get it. This image is currently the only evidence on Wikipedia that the proposed extension of NY 135 was going to be extended to Wantagh State Parkway. Too often there have been similar images that served as evidence of road proposals and former interchange configurations that were unjustifibly deleted with the false promises that they could be replaced, but never were replaced. Even if the sentence that NE2 claimed one of the articles contained existed, the sentences alone don't provide concrete evidence to back them up. This image, and others that were deleted in the past do. ----DanTD (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Harry Potter and Richard Potter and Coefficent Club connection.
[edit]I had no intention of making any unconstructive edits to wikipedia, I just wanted to add important findings hidden from the public and which might interest all the Harry Potter funs and readers. Do a quick research on the following topics (google it): - All Harry Potter book was written by RICHARD POTTER linked to the Rothschilds and not by J.K Rowlings. Rowlings is not an author of these books she was simply an editor but trumped up as the author. - "Coefficient Club" organised by Sidney Webb,Robert Cecil and the Harry Potter book connection. - words such as "Azkaban", "Circe", "Draco", "Erised", "Hermes", and "Slytherin"; all of which are names of real devils or demons and are part of real black magic craft. These are not characters of fiction!
Hope you understand my concernes that books of Harry Potter installing the craft into the minds of vulnerable children with "predictive programming". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davedawit (talk • contribs) 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The seven trumpets blowing sweet rock and roll
[edit]Question: do you have access to the book Genesis: Chapter and Verse (the one co-wrote by all five)? I saw it in Waterstones in Trafalgar Square last night (daytrip), and flicked through and found a nice quote by, I think Hackett, saying doing "Apocalypse in 9/8" was like "Elgar on acid". Unfortunately, the local libraries within ten miles don't carry the book, and I haven't got enough money :/ Will (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Please Help Me
[edit]User:Ryulong just deleted my user page. I didn't deserve this, can you please put my userpage back, because I can't it won't let me do it my self. — NuclearVacuum 14:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Query about reversion
[edit]Just a minor query, really, as to why you reverted my minor entry on the TARDIS appearing on the cover of Six: You cited the reason as original research/good faith. Fair enough; but have you seen that cover, or know the history of it? I wouldn't have thought citations would be necessary if it's actually visible... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfechu (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey there... Agree about the 'appears to be', that was bad wording on my part and almost got dropped. Can't find a quotable page about it definitively being the TARDIS on the cover (other than the actual wiki article...) One thing I had forgotten is that Tom Baker is actually on the album, not just on the cover, as mentioned here. The sound of the TARDIS (de)materialising can also be clearly heard on the last minute or so of the album. Between those, would that be sufficient corroborative evidence? Cheers.
Thanks for the feedback, by the way. Still pretty new at this :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfechu (talk • contribs) 03:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Davros
[edit]I've found, what is to me, a problem on Davros. Its states Julian Bleach has been cast as Davros in series 4 of Doctor Who. This to me seems like pure speculation. See Talk:Davros for more. I'd rather an administrator reviewed it than me just simply removing it. TheProf | 2007 13:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Beatles Help
[edit]Can you tell me why is vandalism what I just did to The Beatles Help page. I complete the information about personnel and instrumentation. I think this is constructive. Is accurate information. Do you know anything about The Beatles or about this album?
Can you review this
[edit]can you review this edit [1] by User:Charles Stewart Gnevin (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oops never mind seen he's been blocked already Gnevin (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- No need to refactor , i missed that he was blocked , everything that needs to be done is done , cheers Gnevin (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Lyme Regis
[edit]What do you mean "there's no gallery on Commons"? The link to the Commons gallery for Lyme is already there, has been so for two years, and a brief glance suggests that it contains everything that was already on the article, and more. Hope that helps, Joe D (t) 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
TW is teh not awesome, sometimes...
[edit]Thanks for this. I go over such edits after I finish going through the cats, which I haven't yet, to look for such errors. Thanks for fixing it. :) Lara❤Love 20:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I have a question about your recently authored article R v Collins of a legal case in England. There is an existing article from 2006 titled R. v. Collins of a different case in Canada. Given that the only difference between the two article titles is period placement, the possibility of confusion for readers is high. My question is in two parts: Is your article best titled R v Collins (the lawindexpro link in the article calls it Regina v Collins) and, if it is the proper title, might you consider a hatnote disambiguating R v Collins and R. v. Collins on the articles. As I am unfamiliar with the niceties of case law documentation, I do not know the best resolution of this issue. Thanks for your help. -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent work, thanks. -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Re:Gurch
[edit]Where did I post he was gone? I don't recall...I knew he was gone though, tis a shame. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, there it is. Yeah, I went to Gurch's page to ask him something earlier that day saw he hadn't edited in a month or so. At the very least, he has been memorialized at least once, here. Only the *ahem*, most brilliantest editors make it there. Anywho, to answer your original question, I don't know why good editors leave. But they do. Burnout, flameout, laptop crashes. Who knows, but many if not most seem to come back, sometimes w/ a new user name. Sometimes they just come back because its hard to walk away. I'd be willing to bet that most "disappeared" users do check in from time to time at the very least. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandal
[edit]Hi. This user just recreated a page that you had deleted, despite vandalism warnings. Please look into this. Thank you. Jonneroo (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry; I misspelled his name; it is corrected here (hopefully). Jonneroo (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Vandal has been blocked; thank you. Jonneroo (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
sorry
[edit]I am really sorry please forgive me badly. i did it because i thought that i wikipedia there was points so i redid them because i got like so much points in my watch page so i didn't know so please if you can explain it to me that would be great because i am new. please reply me as soon as possible. Sorry! :( from,
--Jsucooldude1 (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Lewishon and Pollack
[edit]196.40.0.34 (talk · contribs) continues citing this source for Beatles-related articles, even referring to them as "foremost experts". I thought you might want to know. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is it an acceptable source? I thought it was OR. But I'm not a "foremost expert". :) --Ward3001 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okey dokey. Thanks. Happy editing. --Ward3001 (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]I reverted your edits because they were irrelevant to the advancement of the article. It was not necessary to add a summary.
Falcofire (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Beatles
[edit]It just so happens that it was me who had the tag put in place in december as people yet reverting my decision to revert unsourced materil. Nothing has improved in over 3 months so it needs removing. Realist2 (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
In three month there have been 3 sources provided and all of them were in the first week as ppl were scared i would remove the table. It hasnt been touched in 11 weeks. not good enough. Realist2 (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not your decision. Consensus rules here, not one person's unilateral butchery. I suggest you wait and see what emerges from the Talk page discussion. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I got an edit conflict when I went to block. I did not put two and two together until i re-read the username like 5 times...maybe it is time for bed :) Tiptoety talk 01:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Cheers
[edit]Thanks for your kind words :) ~ Riana ⁂ 11:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Harassment
[edit]Is there any way I can do it a little more anonymous? --Xander756 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thought you should know there's been a goodly amount of discussion; the user's apparently agreed not to repeat the problematic behavior, and several people have commented in favor of releasing the block given their history of contributions and the securing of such an agreement. Recently Black Kite posted to WP:AN/I asking if someone would fulfill the unblock request on their behalf (technical difficulties of some sort); I would like to wait for your response, but given another admin had already "granted" the request, and the pretty strong apparent consensus behind it, I went ahead and hoped for the best. Letting you know, to whatever end. Hope that's okay with you, apologies if it is not. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Christopher Mann McKay
[edit]Hi - I have unblocked this user with a promise of no repeat of his tendentious behaviour. I didn't contact you because I misread the talk page and believed the blocking admin to be User:Hesperian, who posted "If some other admin wants to stick their neck out for you, on their head be it." I've just noticed that this was the admin who declined the original unblock. I'll leave him unblocked for the time being (I've been involved on articles on which he's active before and know that he can be very productive) but if you have any major concerns please contact me. As Hesperian says, on my head be it :) Black Kite 10:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the user put double single quotes around the title, for italics.[2] It didn't look like editorializing to me, although I left your revert because it seemed the italics weren't in keeping with the rest of the style of the article anyway. Isaacsf (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
THANK YOU!
[edit]Thank you for your recent post. It really brightened my day. You are a true patriot for Wikipedia. --InvisibleDiplomat666 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then you will be taking it in the spirit intended. I appreciate your reply.--InvisibleDiplomat666 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I recommend that the user be asked not to nominate articles for deletion, being that most articles were speedy keep at AfD and the user clearly does not understand the deletion process. Should not a user try to create articles before attempting to nominate an article for deletion, showing that she or he has an understanding of what is a Wikipedia article per WP:V. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Based on this user's actions, it appears very unlikely that he/she is a new user. He/she has been around the Wikiblock before. Therefore, I think the user knows what Wikipedia policy is but may be flaunting it a little bit. Jonneroo (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am aware the user is not new, but I am trying to assume good faith. At the same time, I would not want someone runing around and nominating articles for deletion, just because they do not like the article. Igor Berger (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to sound condescending, so please forgive me if I came across that way. I agree that we should assume good faith, but it's a good idea for the community to keep an eye on the user's actions to make sure the user is also acting in good faith. If the user suddenly stopped nominating articles for deletion, "cold turkey," and doesn't make any more edits we may never have enough information to know whether the user's contributions were or were not in good faith...so I guess we'll just assume good faith until proven otherwise. Jonneroo (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually an assumption of good faith here, is a big strech for all of us, because the user is clearly not new, so it will require for all of us to keep an eye on the user. Igor Berger (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like the WP:DUCK is a multiple sock, now we do not have to watch it! Igor Berger (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't trying to sound condescending, so please forgive me if I came across that way. I agree that we should assume good faith, but it's a good idea for the community to keep an eye on the user's actions to make sure the user is also acting in good faith. If the user suddenly stopped nominating articles for deletion, "cold turkey," and doesn't make any more edits we may never have enough information to know whether the user's contributions were or were not in good faith...so I guess we'll just assume good faith until proven otherwise. Jonneroo (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am aware the user is not new, but I am trying to assume good faith. At the same time, I would not want someone runing around and nominating articles for deletion, just because they do not like the article. Igor Berger (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Doctor Who
[edit]Hey, not that I really care either way about the information you removed, but while I don't have a source, you said in your edit history "considered by whom?", and I would say "Russell T Davies?" I know, I know, without a source, it's OR, but... if a source can be found, IMO it should go back in - I'd thought it was already in the articles, but I haven't seen it yet. Anyway, just $0.02. --Umrguy42 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Understood... I'm perusing History of Doctor Who as I type, and I run across the following:
- "Davies was made the chief writer and Executive Producer of the new series (called Series One instead of continuing the numbering with Season 27, although the narrative thread continued from the old series rather than starting afresh),"
- and
- "In the April 2004 issue of Doctor Who Magazine, Davies announced that Eccleston's Doctor would indeed be the Ninth Doctor"
- (emphasis added in both). But I don't see a directly linked source for that in the article... any suggestions for how one would source that properly? --Umrguy42 (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Kalasha
[edit]Hello I am making changes to Kalasha article because it is not correct. I am Kalasha on my fathers family and what is writen in article not true! We are Makhedonian peoples not a Greek or Bulgarian. Please help me change article because it is about my peoples and is not correct.Khan bangledesh (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You just deleted Stephanie Quinn when it contained the whole edit summary for User (computing). You should have deleted User (computing), then moved Stephanie Quinn to User (computing), then reverted to the version of User (computing) prior to the move, then deleted Stephanie Quinn. Now you need to undelete Stephanie Quinn and do as I said above please. We have to preserve the edit summary for articles because of the GFDL. Jackaranga (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I could do it myself except I can't delete User (computing) to make way for the move. Jackaranga (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- WAAAAAAARGGGHH! Leave it with me. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother you yet again, but I think you just made the same mistake for the talk pages now. :p You need to undelete Talk:Stephanie Quinn and move it to Talk:User (computing), and revert back again. It would have been moved automatically when you move the article page except Talk:User (computing) already existed, because you didn't delete it along with the article to make way for the move. Jackaranga (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Re:Maybe it's best to list it in the holding pen, it has become very complicated. Jackaranga (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support!
[edit]Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Racism in edit summaries
[edit]I was being bold. Should I not have been, in retrospect...? ;-) GBT/C 21:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the deleted edits were all circular - ie. the page is now in the place that it was left after all the racist edits, and consequent reverts, played out. So no harm, no foul, I guess...! GBT/C 21:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for dealing with this. It definitely wasn't me! Funny, I can't remember upsetting any trolls lately - I wonder who was behind it? Warofdreams talk 00:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Rhys Williams (Torchwood)
[edit]Since I've created an article for Rhys and updated it, who whether wikipedians like to aknowledge it or not is not a minor character anymore. Can I please re-edit the list of minor characters? Yesterday you agreed that he deserved a page yet you revert my giving him one? Mikeipedia (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Community Service
[edit]Yeah, please do. I started to and thought I'd stopped; I guess I had started writing the block message. Sorry about that, but yes, go ahead and undo my block. —C.Fred (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Another admin and myself [on IRC] would recommend that a 24/48 hour block would be better than an indef one. What do you think? It's not such a big issue but before the troubles the user was doing semi-decent edits. Take care. ScarianCall me Pat 14:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okie dokie, done. If he comes back in 2 days time and he's starts vandalising again I'll buy you a beer! ;-) - Cheers and take care! ScarianCall me Pat 14:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: AfD nomination of Stephanie Quinn
[edit]Err, you seem to have sent me a message that is completely off-base... better check page history for pearls like that one:
- 15:52, 3 March 2008 Stephaniequinn (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved User (computing) to Stephanie Quinn: I didn't put a space between first and last name.) (undo)
I've no idea how that page move could ever be marked as a minor edit, by a completely newbie user... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:MarnyAsTaylor.jpg)
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:MarnyAsTaylor.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia
- fixed
PatKirkwoood socks
[edit]I was wondering, since you indefinitely blocked the registered username for sockpuppetry, if the same was going to be done with any of the anonymous IPs involved. 90.198.115.130, the primary IP listed in the sock puppet complaint (in Brighton, England), continues to tamper with image reversions and the like. 11 of the last 15 edits done were reversions of image changes by other editors. He seems to enjoy focusing on EastEnders related articles, but not exclusively. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Dmknable
[edit]If you want to remove my warning, I won't object. Corvus cornixtalk 18:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, no problem. Corvus cornixtalk 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.164.54 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
sorry not meaning to cause trouble.. (on the Ky Col) just a different meaning on who or what is important I guess... I have been adding family datta to Floyd Knobs Indiana History also from Family journals from the original people who migrated here in 1830's so I do know it is FACT as they wrote it themselves,,,, also evident by the number of streets and areas named after them.. Thanks (and sorry) Dennis —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmknable (talk • contribs) 00:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)