User talk:Stephenb
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Archives
- Archive1 (20th June 2005 - 20th Jan 2006)
- Archive2 (21st Jan 2006 - 27th June 2006)
- Archive3 (28th June 2006 - 30th Jan 2007)
- Archive4 (31st Jan 2006 - 25th June 2007)
- Archive5 (26th June 2007 - 31st Jan 2008)
[edit] Undo
Hi thanks for the undo on Nancy Cartwright..another edit conflict gone wrong :( ...--Cometstyles 13:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, happens to all of us occasionally :( Stephenb (Talk) 13:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Terry Pratchett
Hi - your edit on the Bomedliad etc section was a good one - lists are not advised I know (theyve been there since before I got involved).
Can I ask you to be patient today about me getting in that data I've been compiling RE the empty sections? I'm only asking as I'll be attempting them anyway when i'ts done, so I don't want anyone to waste any time removing them fist. After the new stuff is in I'd like your input, and would be happy if you move things around afterwards - I'm not a hog, I'm just trying to make a better article. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I'll see what you add, but please remember citations, and let's not have too many subsections for aspects of Pratchett's life that aren't that notable, eh? Stephenb (Talk) 17:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm recording all the citations ready to put in, it's all work. If any sections look too small, we can always scrub them. RE notability - I'm going by what Pratchett keeps refering back to (and giving more detail about, such him still being a journalist, and Tolkien) - his obsessions, in a sense. In a way I'm doing Original Research - but at least it's off the page. In WP it will all be cited, relevant and hopefully make sense, otherwise we can scub it. eg I've found that his various appearances (from online chats to cons and signigs)are part of his life and a major part of his creative output (he uses them for inspiration). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 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) 08:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Torchwood ep guide
Thanks for fixing that - sorry I missed it! DavidFarmbrough (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Article: Chanyut Chokjanphen
I've changed your prod to a db-bio, this is a huge BLP violation about a non-notable child. Corvus cornixtalk 04:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- No arguments from me! Stephenb (Talk) 12:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:Cliff Richard/Comments
I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Talk:Cliff Richard/Comments. The reason I declined it is because it is a subpage of Talk:Cliff Richard. Since the Cliff Richard article exists and isn't about to be deleted, the subpages of its talk page can't be deleted unbder CSD G8.. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, thanks - does this mean it can't be deleted because its a subpage, or just can't be deleted under G8? Because nothing refers to it, and the comments are completely useless (and unsigned) Stephenb (Talk) 15:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- It means that this page isn't covered by G8. If you can find some other CSD, feel free to try. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- OK, thanks for the clarification. Well, it isn't suitable for PROD or AfD... there's nothing else that really covers it under WP:SPEEDY... I used G8 because there's no Cliff Richard/Comments article. So, I guess it stays then; I suppose it's not doing any harm..! Stephenb (Talk) 15:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- If you think it needs to be deleted, please look at WP:XFD to find the right discussion place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Empire-cvr.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Empire-cvr.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 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) 14:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] dab
Hi, I see you have been removing the dab tag from many letter pages. I have been used to adding "cleanup" where a dab page needs it but this doesnt seem to work with a letter page once the main dab has been removed in favour of the letter dab sign ... is there a way that I am missing? Abtract (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ooh, not sure, sorry. I was removing many dab tags since I changed the letter disambiguation tag to be similar to the Number disambiguation tag, implicitly transcluding the disambiguation category, and this lead to duplicate disambiguation notices on the letter pages. I think I removed one cleanup tag where I thought it looked unnecessary, but left others (which still have duplicates). So, I'm not sure what "doesn't seem to work" any more? Stephenb (Talk) 14:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, F (disambiguation) includes {{disambig-cleanup}} and seems to be there - does that help? Stephenb (Talk) 15:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yes I knew that so I guess I am just being dim, all we need to do is put that on ... I was thinking that since the disambig tag had gone there was nowhere to put the cleanup tag but of course we can put the whole lot (disambig-cleanup) on. It might be an idea not to remove the cleanup tag until it has been cleaned in the future. Thanks I am happy now. :) Abtract (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] MacDonald
Didn't find that article. Would ask where it was but that would make me sound like even more of an idiot. Thanks Donaldhenderson (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles are case-sensitive - I guess you found a red link at Flora MacDonald pointing at Flora Macdonald (Scottish Jacobite) (small 'd') and created the article. However, someone had edited the former incorrectly to switch from the previously correct capital 'D', which already had an article (Flora MacDonald (Scottish Jacobite) - note the 'D'!). So, I just changed your page to be a redirect: #redirect [[Flora MacDonald (Scottish Jacobite)]] and fixed the first page again :) Stephenb (Talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RC-0722
 |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| Thanks for fixing my userpage. It's nice to know someone is keeping an eye out for me. RC-0722 communicator/kills |
- Coo, thank you :) Stephenb (Talk) 14:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| 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) 07:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recent edits on THFC site
I have just reverted two edits by User:Shakehandsman who is as you know make a couple of significant edits to the Tottenham Hotspur F.C. page. I have suggested he takes the most recent to the Talk page to gain consensus could you take a look, Thanks Tmol42 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Asking someone who shares your views on an issue for input/support is hugely undesirable at best and can be considered canvassing. If you want opinions on a matter you need to ask people with differing viewpoints. --Shakehandsman (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Such as you, who seems to add POV to articles and somewhat controversial additions without citations? Tmol42 is perfectly at liberty to ask for input Stephenb (Talk) 08:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] More on minitoke article (or do you suggest mini-toke?)
Thanks for responding to my letter. Sorry about the User page, I forgot where to go. Excuse: time was running out on safe anonymous big city library computer-- from which I discuss things like Minitoke, because if the tobacco oligarchs are willing to "snuff" 5.4 million/year of their faithful devoted slave customers (WHO Feb. 2008 estimate) what will they do when they find a real "enemy" out here? For the same reason I would certainly understand if you are anxious about helping Wikipedia get embroiled in any really important challenge to the hot-burning-overdose marketing empire.
Meanwhile, having kept no copy, how do I access the former draft for a Minitoke article, in order to assess the shortcomings and get started on a correction?Tokerdesigner (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- No idea about the title, sorry - I've never heard of the "minitoke" or "mini-toke" and have no interest in such matters. Try adding {{helpme}} on your talk page (or visiting The Help Desk) and someone should be along to tell you how to get the draft back, and what to do with it when you do. Stephenb (Talk) 08:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] EastEnders on hold (GA sweep)
I have reassessed this article as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. We are currently revisiting all listed Good articles in an effort to ensure that they continue to meet the Good article criteria.
In reviewing the article, I came across some issues that may need to be addressed; I have left a detailed summary on the article's talk page. As a result I have put EastEnders's GA status on hold. This will remain in place for a week or so before a final decision is taken as to the article's status.
I've left this notice here because, from the article history, you have been a significant contributor. If you no longer edit this article, please accept my apologies and feel free to disregard this message ;)
Regards, EyeSereneTALK 13:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Constitution of Belarus
Constitution of Belarus has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification, but all I did was revert vandalism on it :) Stephenb (Talk) 11:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well, you're welcome to comment all the same... Regards, ProhibitOnions (T) 11:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Had to remove prod from DVD releases for 2008, bringing to AfD
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from DVD releases for 2008, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVD releases for 2008, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! -- Atamachat 16:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fine - process well observed :) Stephenb (Talk) 16:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| 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) 08:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia in The Archers
Since you obviously just don't like trivia, I removed the entire trivia section; hopefully this will relieve you of the need to dick around with interesting edits without comment and just because you personally don't like them. 81.149.153.146 (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fine by me to remove the trivia. :) Stephenb (Talk) 08:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Deletionist
I totally agree with you on the deletionist problem. I've encountered even admins who are like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssh83 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 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) 02:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ecopedagogy article
Hello. Can you please go back to your Ecopedagogy article, which you helped create, and re-write it using language appropriate to a general audience? The terms you are using are far too technical, and as a result the article is generally incomprehensible.
Also, since you seem to have an interest, you may want to edit the Richard V. Kahn and Steven Best articles when you have some time, to provide more proof of the subjects' notability (see WP:N and WP:BIO for help with that). As it stands, I don't think those articles will survive a deletion review. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was only categorizing uncategorized articles at the time - not "my" article, I have no interest in any of them. Stephenb (Talk) 09:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 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) 08:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 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) 22:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User:Benito568
You might want to take a look at User:Benito568. I don't know whether you've managed to get someone blocked recently, but it seems suspicious that a new account would copy your user page. --212.32.75.219 (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! Thanks for noticing and popping by to tell me, as I probably wouldn't have seen it... You're probably right, and I see (s)he's vandalised a number of pages already (all reverted, some by you). Benito568 is not doing any harm by copying my userpage as such, but I'll keep an eye out and see what develops. The likelihood is that either it's a vandal who will go away, or one that will get themselves blocked at some point! Thanks again. Stephenb (Talk) 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- You're welcome. --212.32.75.219 (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 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) 09:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] James Allen (Formula One commentator)
Thanks for restoring the cats to James Allen (Formula One commentator). I can't believe the article had no cats for over a month and nobody noticed! Thanks again. DH85868993 (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Me neither (but it happens)! You're welcome. :) Stephenb (Talk) 12:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Centrifugal Force
Steve, I don't know why you chose to intervene on the centrifugal force page. I can assure you that centrifugal force has got one meaning. The version which you restored is manifestly false and there is not a single textbook which will back up the statement that centrifugal force is a term which applies to two different forces. David Tombe (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't intervening so much as reverting what I saw as vandalism, or, at least changes made in good faith without understanding the Wiki way (now that I look at the reversion I did). Looking at the Talk page, you don't seem to have consensus on your views, but the version that I reverted appeared poorly formatted and appeared to remove information, so looked very much like vandalism or very poor editing. Stephenb (Talk) 15:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Stephen, thanks for replying. But I can assure you that the onus of wikification is on them. They need to provide a citation which clearly states that centrifugal force is a term which applies to two different forces. There is no textbook or encyclopaedia which will state that.
-
- On the issue of consensus,I am trying to debate the matter. The so-called consesnus version clearly has to be changed because it contains a balatantly false and misleading statement at the beginning.
-
- I have replaced it with an alternative version which is easier to read and which contains all the key points. If anybody objects to the contents of this alternative version, then it would be much better if they would revert it one sentence at a time and discuss why.
-
- At the moment, we are witnessing a case of wholesale reversion to a faulty version without any proper discussion on the key points, or what it is that they object to about the alternative version. David Tombe (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- You minunderstand. Wikification is the process of turning the text into an article, using proper grammar, formatting, references and citations. Whether or not your version or the other version is faulty is not why I reverted. Stephenb (Talk) 09:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
-
Stephen, Thanks for clarifying that. What I'm doing now instead is I'm working on the wikified version and changing small parts of it to remove the inaccuracies.
You say that you are not a physicist, but I'm sure that you are capable of understanding these two key points. I'll explain them to you.
(1) Centrifugal force throws something outwards. That something knocks into something else.
The wikified version was trying to teach the view that the knock on effect whcih is also called centrifugal force, is a different force.
I'm trying to adopt the broader view that there is only one centrifugal force and that the knock on effect is just a knock on effect.
It is most confusing for readers to read in the first line that centrifugal force is a term applied to two different forces. Its the same as arguing that the force of a book pushing on a table surface, due to gravity is different than the force of gravity acting on a book.
The equivalent would be to introduce gravity as a term applied to two different forces, one which acts on an object and the other being the knock on effect when that object hits something else.
(2)The other objection to the wikified version was the fact that it gives the impression that centrifugal force is restricted to circular motion. It can in fact occur in any kind of curved motion.
I was trying to generalize it.
My most recent version before it was reverted by PeR (who reverts everything that I do, yet never voices his own views) was designed to be short and to the point, yet mentioning all the key points. Alot of the details can be discussed in the main article.
I think that alot of this problem stems from the fact that last year, I had a prolonged debate with PeR and Henning Makholm over the issue of whether or not centrifugal force was real or fictitious.
I don't think that they have quite realized yet that I am not objecting to the wikified article on those grounds. That was an old argument.
I am objecting to the fact that the concept of two centrifugal forces is double talk to appease two conflicting opinions on the issue. That is not how the matter should be handled. It is better to present the true facts as are agreed by all and then to state that a controversy exists regarding whether centrifugal force is real or fictitious. But unfortunately some of those who believe that it is fictitious don't even want to recognize the fact that another viewpoint even exists. David Tombe (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy tags
Your speedy tags aren't signed and dated, which makes it hard to see when a user has vandalized past a warning. Maybe it's a Twinkle setting? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wierd - they used to be - maybe it's a Twinkle bug? Thanks for letting me know, I'll look into it (though not tonight, unfortunately - you just caught me before I log out!) Stephenb (Talk) 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, a quick check of the Twinkle discussion page suggests it is a bug :( Stephenb (Talk) 17:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 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) 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blake's 7 - form of new Sky One series
Hi Stephen, I'm writing to you with regard to this edit, which removed my comment regarding the form of the newly announced Blake's 7 series. The reason why I made this edit was that the "Television" section which the sentence was in, talks of a previous revival attempt which was "set 20 years after the original series had concluded". Since this newly announced series is not necessarily the same as this attempt, the article should make it clear that this may not, in fact, be a follow-on series, but might instead be a remake (along the lines of Bionic Woman, Doctor Who et al.) If you have a better suggestion of how to phrase this then please let me know, however I do think the article seems to imply something that isn't (necessarily) true in the way it is currently written. Kidburla (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hello... So, what you're saying is "we don't know"... and thus there's very little point in including that sentence in the article. Perhaps something along the lines of "This revival is a new attempt and does not necessarily follow the same intended model." but even that doesn't give any information - it might be the same model, it might not - I think it's better the leave it open. Stephenb (Talk) 18:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] External link removed being spam?
Hi I hope this is the right place to post and contact Stephenb. At the help IRC channel they told me I can contact by clicking "new section".
I'm quite new on Wikipedia and english actually is not my native language.
But I found an interesting (english) website containing nicely written articles about the Beatles. So I thought I'll post it in the Wikipedia article. I don't know why the link I posted (something-books.com) was being stated to be spam...
Actually they do have interesting information on their website, take a more intensive look inside the menus and read all submenus of "about the beatles".
There are intersting articles and information about the Beatles I have never read before, not available on wikipedia either.
That site has a shop, and I understand that if a website has stuff to sell maybe that could be a reason why it could be considered to be spam. But the only big thing they sell is an impressive book they published. In fact, as far as I can tell, that book seems to be the most detailed Beatles discography with every record ever released in every country (not cheap though...)
Maybe I'm wrong, but since I'm a big Beatles fan myself I find that website contains valuable information for Beatles fans, so it brings some value if posted in the Beatles article.
If I was wrong about that link than I'm really sorry, but I don't understand...
best regards,
maXign —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxign (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bangkok museum stubs
Don't worry these were Blofeld bot generated from a missing list. IN due course they will be referenced and expanded. I've been to some of them myself such as the Gem and Jewelry museum and the cermaics center but can't remember too much about them although they were pretty interesting ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, they looked bot generated, but clearing them in the NewPages list can often be useful to help spot the, err, less useful pages left in yellow :) Anyway, I was only doing it in my spare time. Thanks though. Stephenb (Talk) 11:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 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) 06:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Guy Is A Jackass page
I was given a warning about the 'This Guy is a Jackass' page. I didn't create it. In an attempt to prove this, I've gone to the page to check the logs, and found out you weren't the deleter, so why have you given the warning?. I'm confused. I understand this might sound like an attack on you, which I apologise for, but I don't understand why this has happened. Dragon909 (talkcontribs) 15:50, 13 May 2008
- I just looked at my logs, and so it appears that my account was used for an attack. However, I didn't create the page, butI am sorry for the above message.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon909 (talk • contribs)
OK... I nominated the article for speedy deletion, but an admin has to delete it if he or she agrees with the nominator. I suggest you change your password to be more secure. Stephenb (Talk) 18:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 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) 09:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Go AWAY!
stop tagging my pages for speedy deletion you idiot! Gosh I am important enough for my own wikipage so stop deleting them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetjesusitshanky (talk • contribs)
[edit] LemmeyBOT
LemmeyBOT is this. Apparently the multiple edits by the anoymous user included him adding multiple sources then breaking them. The bot identifyied 3 broken edits and restored them, you seem to have wandered in during the process. LemmeyBOT has no opinon on what content should be in the article. LemmeyBOT just hates orphans. --LemmeyBOT (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, thanks - I did look what the bot did after I reverted... but it did appear that the vandalism I was trying to revert was being interfered with! Perhaps the bot should wait a little bit after recent edits to reclaim the references? Stephenb (Talk) 21:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Charles Dickens
Hi. I undid your change to the Charles Dickens article, but then found this which could be argument in favour of your change. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether or not there is a "strong national tie" in this case. Personally I'm not sure why you silly Brits have such an infatuation with the letter u (and conversely seem so afraid of poor old z) but maybe that's just because I'm a stupid American and don't know any better. :) Cheers, --UC Bill (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind, Old Moonraker has already reverted the article. I'm not convinced that an article exhibits "strong national ties" simply because of the nationality of the subject, but since I honestly don't care that much, I'm certainly not going to argue. --UC Bill (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Good, because I would argue very strongly that Dickens is British and does have strong national ties. And I don't appreciate your implication that as a "silly" Brit I have an "infatuation" with the letter 'u', which implies that I changed the article for no good reason. Stephenb (Talk) 18:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 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) 07:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Footballer Notability
Hi Stephenb. I hope you don't mind me asking for your thoughts on notability here (rather than the THFC talk page) which has been troubling me for a while having tried to develop a 'sensible' list of notable THFC players [2]. I was prompted by your recent edits of the THFC page. I agreed with your recent edits of former players re their notability with perhaps the exception of Neil Sullivan who is recorded on soccerbase having had 81 app for TH and was debatably at least the Scottish no 1 Goal keeper for most if not all the period whilst at the club with 13 caps. If we dropped him we should prune a good few more I think. I'll be honest I struggle with what is 'notable' having watched from the touchline the recent debate on the Arsenal list. I don't favour only those with 100 plus (league/all) apps, nor listing all players but equally recongnise that drawing the line below this is nigh impossible when those perhaps achieving more notability appearing as internationals than having done so by playing for TH. Also do we need two versions of notability for the respective THFC main and player list pages or just one? Any thoughtsTmol42 (talk<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/navpop.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">) 12:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that it is nigh on impossible! I decided to revert all the recent additions rather than just prune them since the majority weren't notable and the list was getting ridiculously long... The criteria I would apply is either (a) "world renown" or (b) renowned by club standards, though I appreciate these are largely subjective too - Neil Sullivan is on the borderline of "world renown" due to his international record, although he would be less well-remembered by even fans of Spurs, and I would have no objection to him being added back in. To be honest, though, these lists are a pain, since there appears to be no agreed, defined criteria to work against. I didn't see the argument about the Arsenal list... Checking the Football WikiProject, the template for a club says the list should be: "(Noted players of the club, who have had a major impact on the club's history. The section should use external sources for the list, not the personal opinions of editors.)" (my bold). That would leave out players of world renown that didn't actually have much impact at the club itself, though perhaps that is correct (and would rule out Sullivan?). It would also indicate that the list should be pruned considerably until we have a list that indicates, using references, each player's notability! Perhaps this is best raised on the article talk page or as a general discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Clubs? Sorry I can't be that much more help. Stephenb (Talk) 13:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the helpful feedback. I'll give some thought to a suitable post on the Talk page but think I will stay clear of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Clubs as the discussion directed from there 'off piste' has only died down after a mighty transatlantic row a month or so back and I don't want to rekindle the fires as no concensus was reached,Cheers Tmol42 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 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) 08:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
