User talk:Huw Powell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not.

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the time stamp. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my Talk page. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

- Sango123 23:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Re: comet article vandalism report...

I found you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jesserich If you look at the history on the comet page, between this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comet&oldid=114730362 and this one by Jesserich: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comet&oldid=114829467 the article seems to have "reproduced" itself multiple times. I would try to fix it but I'm a bit a noob about that sort of thing. So I am leaving you this note, thinking you can fix it quickly and properly. Feel free to drop me a note at my talk page if you think I could have figured how to do it myself! Thanks much, human 02:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing this issue to my attention; it has now been resolved. The issue you encountered was most likely caused by vandalism – intentionally unconstructive edits to the article. If in future you wish to fix such problems yourself, you can 'revert' the article to an earlier version that hasn't been tampered with. See Help:Reverting#How_to_revert. Thanks – Qxz 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposing an article for deletion

Hi Huw (I actually wrote "Hugh" and then went back to get rid of my typo. Sorry, silly me!) - I saw your message at Talk:Pars Society. I quite agree that it looked like deletable material, so I nominated it for deletion. You can enter the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pars Society; if you ever want to nominate an article for deletion there are instructions at WP:AFD. Cheers, TheGrappler 16:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Grappler! I see the AFD nom resulted in deletion. I'll try to do it on my own next time! Huw Powell 20:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mpc logo.png

Hello, Huw Powell. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Mpc logo.png) was found at the following location: User:Huw Powell/Model Products Corporation. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Clumsy. Thanks for the "warning". Luckily I still have the image on my hard drive. This was a sandbox version of an article I am trying to write. Image should stay on WP for the future use. Why not just inform me not to "display" it on my WIP page? Huw Powell 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linda McCartney

She's waiting for a GA review, but go for it if you want to. :) --andreasegde (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to work gently, and only make the Article Gooder if I can! Huw Powell (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your work on Linda McCartney/wife-spouse of McCartney. I had hit a brick wall before your help. Muchos Gracias I think they say... --andreasegde (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you are so welcome, it was my pleasure to try to to help. It's a difficult "head space" to work in, since most of us "know of her" because she was married to Paul. And in Beatlesworld, "McCartney" is, of course, Paul. It felt weird endlessly referring to him as a mere marital appendage, but it probably made more sense. I think I didn't do the last section yet, though. Huw Powell (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RWs on WP!

Woooo! Another RationalWikian on Wikipedia! --RA talk stalk 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

...Hey, how come you got a formal welcome to Wikipedia, while I just got a warning? --RA talk stalk 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Because I didn't make my only revertable edit (at Spinal Tap, as I recall, but it might have been at the IRS Comic Strip's "Bad News") until after I was welcomed! Huw Powell (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Hollywood values, you will be blocked from editing. Gwernol 04:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not vandalize, I merely tried to express an opinion. If I did it on the wrong page, I am sorry - I could not find a relative talk page link to follow. You are in error in your accusation of "vandalism", since you did not read what I wrote - are you a bot? I also note that you have not linked to whatever edit I made that you objected to. You are just a troll, in my opinion, since nobody can follow your links to find what I wrote and judge me --- for better or fo worse. Huw Powell (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You created an article called "Hollywood Values" that read, in its entirety: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me." Would you care to explain exactly how that is an appropriate encyclopedia article? All administrators can read deleted pages, so it is very easy to get a second opinion about whether that was appropriate. If you thought it was appropriate, why did you write: "Please don't block me"? Stop acting like a troll yourself and at least have the self-respect to own up when you are caught vandalizing. Thanks, Gwernol 12:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It was an accident - I was trying to comment on a deletion thing. I didn't mean to (re)create the article. Please note that my contributions, while just a trickle, are constructive, other than this accident. Huw Powell (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expelled

Can you please explain this edit? What is your rationale for changing a direct quote? Guettarda (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean this edit, I presume. I quote my edit comment: "remove redundant word; change allcaps to itals (approriate?))" - it was a matter of style, where I substituted italics for all capitals for the emphasized word - and I clearly asked in my edit comment whether this was appropriate or not. If it not deemed appropriate for stylistic or quotation reasons, then I hope it will already have been returned to the all caps version by now. If my edit caused any problems, please accept my apologies. Thanks! Huw Powell (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] m-derived filter/image impedance

I am in the process of writing a series of articles on filters designed by the image method. So I don't have to keep revisiting articles I have already written, I have been putting in red links to ones I know I am going to write. When people started deleting the red links, I turned them into temporary redirects to stop that happening. Except you won't stop - even though I wrote some text on the redirect page explaining why I had done this, which you clearly did not read. Ok I give up, too difficult to stop people deleting things they don't understand. SpinningSpark 16:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand the first part of what you said. I also remember removing a link that was a redirect back to the page it was on.
I don't understand how I could be expected to think that a redirect's talk page (is that where you left your note?) would tell me what you expected me to figure out.
"Except you won't stop" - I really don't understand what you mean by that.
"Ok I give up, too difficult to stop people deleting things they don't understand." I think your process is opaque. If people delete your red links, why not just create a stub placeholder at the target? Both of those practices are widespread, and transparent to other users. Creating a redirect loop is not a useful placeholder, since no one can tell why you have done it.
Thanks for explaining, at least, why there was a redirect loop in that article. It's always nice to get new messages :)