User talk:ROxBo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Graham Richardson

Thanks for your response. I do believe the Richardson page is verging on an "attack page", as "the subject is notable but the existing page consists (solely or) primarily of personal attacks against that subject".

The subject is notable, but the scandals section is longer than the rest of the article and some of the scandals listed are pretty tenuous and/or not especially well sourced. I'm not alleging bad faith on your part here - Richardson has had more than his fair share of 'issues', so I'm not suggesting any deletions, just better sources (okay, maybe one deletion - the Olympic ticketing matter is a long bow).

Up to you - you've been putting a fair bit of work into this article and good luck to you for that :) Jeendan 03:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Mylor & Mylor Bridge

I think Mylor is the name of the parish, Mylor Bridge one of the settlements in the parish. As you probably know, in Cornwall one often find several places in a parish with names based on variations of the parish name (eg a Churchtown, a Highlanes, etc). Probably best to leave them be for the time being, and come back to them when we have better info - I've got them both on my watchlist. DuncanHill 21:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If this differentiation is correct it should be highlighted in the article text. Both articles appear to describe a small village, both very similar!
Don't have a good enough map to hand - and it's a long time since I was in Mylor! I'll do some digging and come back to it tho'. DuncanHill 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Townsville

Geez, you got an apology and a reminder to add references to material, what more could you possibly want? The information when first added smelled like WP:CB and i'd rather remove stuff like that and peform some fact-checking before bringing it back, rather than let it just sit there. You've got no excuse for not adding those references yourself, so just be grateful. Thewinchester (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great pics

I have to say well done with all these photos you have uploaded! They are fantastic! WikiTownsvillian 15:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maxine McKew

I have not seen quotation sections on any other Australian politician page. Also, who chose these "quotations?" What qualifies as a quotation? Recurring dreams 13:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Collins

I declined the speedy request. Often following merge + redirect, the history of the redirect has to be kept for GFDL compliance, so I cannot speedy it. If it has been kept for some other reason, take that to WP:RFD where it can be debated. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mauchly's sphericity test - could you improve the lead?

Hi, as someone unfamiliar with this statistical test, I find the lead of this article a little difficult to follow. Do you think you could expand it--particularly the first sentence--to make it a bit more layperson-friendly? I appreciate your efforts on the article. Cheers, Robert K S 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The royal blackmail scandal

I appreciate you may have strong feelings about this but would it not be better to leave the contentious material out of the article until consensus is reached? I should also inform you of the three revert rule which means that you should not keep readding the mention and undoing the work of other editors in removing it. If you revert more than three times in any 24-hour period you may well be blocked from editing. Sam Blacketer 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richie

The public domain rule is that the image has to be taken in Australia before 1/1/1955. You've said its dated 1956 and as ridiculous as it sounds, the image needs to be deleted from Wikipedia. —Moondyne 15:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See {{PD-Australia}}, and specifically http://www.copyright.org.au/pdf/acc/InfoSheets/G023.pdf and the 3rd item on the table in page 4. Cheers. —Moondyne 04:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Glad you like the pic. I took a few that day but that was the one one where so many different things came together. Grant | Talk 18:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doris Downes

Please don't leave misleading edit summaries. I have done only one revert. You have misunderstood the policy: see WP:3RR. I have only made one edit which has undone your actions. You have made two edits which have undone mine. Please also study WP:NPOV: we use what the sources say. Study WP:NNC as regards what you think the article should contain. It is an editor's job to tend articles. Tyrenius (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Timeshift...

ROxBo, please stop what you're doing on Timeshift's talk page. People are allowed to remove messages from their own talk page if so wish. You can take his reversion of your message as an acknowledgment that he has seen your message, however, you are not allowed to force him to keep the message active on his page. Thanks Roxbo. Sarah 08:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it is at the users digression to delete of their discussion page at any time, but it is usually reserved for offensive or grossly inappropriate comment. Timeshift was very persistent in posting what has proven to be scurrilous rumour. I’m not aiming to harass but it is a major lapse of editing integrity. I think this sort of editing should not be swept under the carpet, is all.ROxBo (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know about this Wayne Carey dispute until just today but obviously, we're not going to report someone's suicide without high quality sources and to do otherwise is not only a violation of policy but also highly irresponsible, legally and ethically. That's the sort of stuff that makes people think Wikipedia is a bad, untrustworthy and unreliable website. However, it does not matter either way if you are right about the Wayne Carey dispute or not. You just can't make people keep things on their talk pages and if you try to, you are the one who will end up in trouble with admins and most likely blocked for disruption. Have a look at this essay: Don't restore removed comments: "If a user removes a comment from their own talk page, (legitimate or not), it should remain removed. By removing the comment, the user has verified that they have read it. The comment is still in the page history, so it is not important to keep it visible just to prove that the user was told about it...Users who repeatedly restore the same comment to another user's talk page may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule or harassing another user." Thank you for explaining what you were doing and why but please understand that you need to refrain from restoring comments to other people's pages. Sarah 09:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, there is no dispute. I have no idea if Wayne is alive or dead. I never undid any of the multiple revisions Timeshift made on the 3rd of Feb (ie 2 days ago) to state Carey had died, nor did I enter into debate with him about the validity of his/her editing deliberately without references. This was all done by other concerned wiki-editors. (See the discussion page - quite illuminating to see what Timeshift considers appropriate editing). I was only concerned that TS’s behaviour is ‘’exactly what makes wikipedia look bad’’, and get bad press. A Herald-Sun article saying “wiki says Carey dead” can’t be far away! Should this be allowed to happen without comment? Perhaps there is an appropriate wikipage to request censure for this sort of deliberate (smug) non-referenced editing? I’d be grateful if you could advise the appropriate wikipage for this.
As an aside, it seemed you got on to Timeshift's talk page revision extraordinarily quickly. I can only presume you have an existing editing relationship... if this is true maybe you are in a position to politely ask TS about his "high quality sources" (none to date, 2 days later) or how ethical and responsible these actions are. ROxBo (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2008
My comments above about making Wikipedia look bad etc were not directed at you but at people trying to add that sort of rubbish to an encyclopedia article. I was trying to say that yes, I agree with what you said about the Wayne Carey issue, BUT, that doesn't give you an excuse to restore deleted messages on someone's talk page. You might be in the right with your opinions about making irresponsible remarks in biographies of living people, but you still cannot hammer that home on Timeshift's page by restoring your posts. I think from the sound of your reply that maybe you misunderstood what I was saying and thought I was blaming you for the Wayne Carey situation. I understand that you weren't involved in edit warring on the article and were just expressing your opinion. I don't have a "existing editing relationship" with Timeshift beyond the fact that I have had to warn him before and I saw your message quickly because his talk page is still on my watchlist from when I have warned him in the past. So if you're trying to suggest that I'm biased or 'sticking up' for him because of a bias or friendship or something then you are most definitely mistaken. Sarah 10:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely was not suggesting anything of the like (bias). Just if you knew him/her you could ask the same qn and expect an answer - which was not forthcoming to me.ROxBo (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Leave it ROxBo, Timeshift is a repeat offender who regularly ignores Wikipedia rules. And to hide his behaviour he deletes any complaints that appear on his page. Technically, he is able to do so:

"Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred."

Although clearly the spirit of the policy is being breached, he has the right to hide his errors. Duggy 1138 (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, then. ROxBo (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, it's OK, but I've gotten in trouble for saying it.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have drawn you into that mess. I had a similar problem as you did with Timeshift before, and as a result problems with OrderinChaos. It's probably best to avoid any direct contact with either of them in the future and report their behaviour. Duggy 1138 (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Raymond_Vonderlehr.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Raymond_Vonderlehr.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)