Talk:Little Woodham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Here we go. All my own work. Not a problem.

I might have to remove the copyvio tag after 3 days, as I believe that the copyvio process has not been carrried out successfully.

1) Please sign your edits.
2) Please do not copy chunks from other websites - that is a violation of copyright. Robertsteadman 20:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your advice Robert, it is so good of you to take the time to assist mre in becoming a more productive editor.Neuropean 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope that's possible. Robertsteadman 20:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let us pray that it can be so.Neuropean 20:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Article is now protected[edit]

Wow. Great work, guys. Sigh. yeah, that was a bit snarky, but really -- arguing over a WIKIFY TAG??????
The article needs cleanup more than wikification -- IMO, just adding links to make the article 'linky' wouldn't be as useful as tightening it up, and it does need tightening up. I was going to put a cleanup tag to replace the wikify tag, but I think I'll just work on it on a separate user page until it's unprotected, and then we can argue about it. -- ArglebargleIV 22:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mess - poorly written, poorly linke, poorly everything - sadly user; Musical Linguist's involvment was only to be expected. She is not a disinterested editor when it comes to my edits and the stalker, vanddal and troll has had mopnths to wotrk out thath getting her involved is a good idea.. Now he has managed to get a bad artuicle protected just when people were intereste3d in improving his poor handiwork. Robertsteadman 22:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the current version is THAT bad -- mediocre instead of poor. Actually an important distinction. Anyway, I'm going to try to tighten it up anyway and put a version here FOR DISCUSSION soon. -- ArglebargleIV 22:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that anyone reading this will see it as it was. Bad faith tagging merely to prove a point. You had plenty of opportunities to improve this article, but you didn't take them. I don't think that you have any real interest in the content of any of the articles, it's a grudge. I have asked you not to. Why didn't you call in somebody else to mediate? Never mind, just keep on showing your real character.Neuropean 22:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad faith tagging (though, of course, you know all about bad faith actions) but simply bad writing, bad info, badly presented - poor writing skills largely unencylcopdeic. Good move involving Musical Linguist says a lot about you and her. Robertsteadman 22:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should follow your example and merely hop from article to article adding tags and inserting thousands of unnecessary wikilinks? I am interested in how you think that I involved User:Musical Linguist, I have not made any contributions to her userpage. Do you know, Robert, you are a very uncharitable man? ML has supported you in the past and given you chances and yet you still have only bad things to say about her. (and about anybody else who has 'crossed' you) What has happened to you in your past to make you so mean?Neuropean 22:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onward[edit]

Robert, looks like a pretty good rewrite to me. There's quite a few more links on normal words than I would do, but it's a matter of taste and I'm not touching them (except for "character" -- it's a disambig page, and "fictional character" doesn't seem quite right to me -- a proper link would be to a dictionary definition). I'm making a couple of small changes -- penninsula and medicene are misspellings (take a look at the redirects, it is recommended they not be used), and a slight wording change. -- ArglebargleIV 13:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - thanks for your help. A shame it got silly last night when we were about to do this work and sort it out.Robertsteadman 14:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Little Woodham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Little_Woodham&oldid=1208520807"