User talk:Exok/Archive2

Peter Kosminsky

Could you explain why you have placed a tag at the top of the page about me on Wikipedia? I am not very familiar with Wikipedia but people interested in my long film-making career have found this page useful. I'm not quite sure what your objection is?

Is this the right way to contact you or is it better done by email?

I have also added a longer comment on the talk page associated with the Peter Kosminsky page. Not sure which is the correct method to use to raise this question.

Best wishes

Peter Kosminsky (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, I've answered it on the article's talkpage. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Undermining wikipedia

Accurate information should not be removed just because it isn't (yet) sourced. That sort of pedantry that damages wikipedia and discourages edits from people who want to help but aren't footnote fetishists. The source, is (very obviously) youtube, and it's on the channel page, which is already linked from the article. People like you make me wonder why I bother with wikipedia. I'm taking a (long) break from editing. Abberley2 (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Very sorry about that. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Good. Don't do it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.46.254 (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Milligan

In regards to my edits on Stephen Milligan, Thanks! I was like Wrong tag...wait..b...L..L...LIVING! Oh yeah ahhah not living! Thanks for the fix! Dillard421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 15:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

How friendly, thank you Dillard. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Fry

Hello Alistair. I fully expected my obviously inappropriate edit to be undone, but I think it is unfair to denounce it as 'unsourced nonsense'. Fry is a Kentucky Colonel. This is sourced - perhaps poorly as it is a wiki-self citation, but the fact is not in doubt and was mentioned previously on an now archived talk page. The sense, or indeed non-sense, is that this same award has been given to a person who has vowed to 'cut off the head' of any gay or lesbian person discovered in his country. Benjamin von Gherkin (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Benjamin, I apologise that you were offended by my edit summary. I read through some of your contributions afterwards and regretted using such harsh language. Again, sorry. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RadioListings

When, where and why were links to RadioListings deprecated? [1] Bradley0110 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 8 Alistair Stevenson (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Bradley0110 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Arsenal Stadium

Hi there, did you mean to make this edit? If so, could you please explain to me what was wrong with my edit. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Jenks24. I'm not sure how that happened, since I haven't even visited the page today. Thanks for messaging me so patiently. I've undone my edit. Exok (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I assumed it wasn't deliberate. Thanks for undoing your edit. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Disco 4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disco_4

Hi Exok, sorry about the edit to the Pet Shop Boys - Disco 4 page. I was trying to link the reference from a Pet Shop Boys fan site showing the chart position of the album to the text in the article. Wasn't trying to do advertising or any promotional information. I'm having a few issues on linking the article text to the reference link however. Could you help me out? Much appreciated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PSBmad — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSBmad (talk • contribs) 13:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello PSBmad, thanks for your message. The reason I keep deleting the reference you're adding is that personal fan sites are almost never acceptable as sources, and definitely not in this case where the link you're adding doesn't take a reader to anything that supports the text it's attached to. I'd love to help you, but I can't help you do that because it's against Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, which it would be great if you could read. Exok (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Exok,

The link I used on the page does link to the text it's attacted to. The reason you may think that is because the article is near the bottomcomment page. I apoligise for the misunderstanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PSBmad — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSBmad (talk • contribs) 13:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This link: http://www.geowayne.com/psbhtml.htm is to the front page of a fan site. It doesn't support a chart position for Disco 4, but even if it did it wouldn't be acceptable as a source because it's not reliable enough. To establish a chart position we would need a professional, independent website such as a newspaper or broadcaster or chartstats.com. WP:USERGENERATED explains why your reference is not ok. Exok (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Exok,

I do intend staying on Wikipedia indeed. Been changing my PSBmad (talk) page to include details about me. Strange how the link I used linked to the homepage rather than the page I wanted. I'll only use official sites from now on not those of fan sites. —Preceding undated comment added 14:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

You might want to read this guideline WP:BOLD, which encourages editors not to be afraid of making mistakes. When you edit a talk page it's a good idea to add four tildes ~ so that the system signs and dates your post. Happy editing! Exok (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Table positioning on pages

Hi Exok,

I was wondering how can you change the position of the tables on pages? I've been trying to change the layout of them but can't see how to. Much appreciated. PSBmad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC).

Hello PSBmad. I've only ever edited the content of tables, I wouldn't know how to move them. Maybe these links on tables and CSS sheets will help? Hope so. Exok (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair Youth

Your constant removal of my clarification here is not helpful. I'm attempting to clarify the fact that scholarship has created the Fair Youth convention in order to discuss the sonnet sequence as a whole. The Fair Youth is a well-respected convention, but nevertheless a convention, and the opening sentconflicting section on Wikipedia could be confusing to a layman who does not understand that "Fair Youth" is not actually a singular person but an idea to which many scholars ascribe conflicting interpretation. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, but I'm trying to clarify the text. — chro • man • cer  20:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have twice amended your edits to restore a neutral viewpoint and minimise an apparent attempt to insert your own original research. Even the very poor 1933 source you have relied upon does not bring the character of the fair youth into contention in the way in which you are attempting to do. Sonnets 1 to 126 are addressed to a single person; even if you could find a source that suggests there may be more than one addressee this would be a minority view and should be given due (ie minimal) weight. To distract a reader by imposing your own highly idiosyncratic take on the identity of this character by suggesting it is a "theory" or only "ostensibly" true is not justifiable. Your original edit summary on 8 June suggested you were seeking "internal consistency", I suggest it might be more sensible for you to aim at consistency with established Shakespeare scholarship. Exok (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Original research? I'm amending it to agree with Shakespearian scholarship. I'm not trying to bring the character of the Fair Youth into question. All significant scholarship agrees that the Fair Youth is a conventional term referring to whoever the poems are addressed to. Every source on the page refers to the concept of the Fair Youth this way. Acting as if this take is idiosyncratic is completely unsupported. Look at the heading under "characters." This is the correct stance: "When analyzed as characters, the subjects of the sonnets are usually referred to as the Fair Youth, the Rival Poet, and the Dark Lady." (emphasis added) The Fair Youth is a character, and attempts to ascribe him to an actual person are suppositional scholarship, some of which is extremely well-founded. Acting like we know that the Fair Youth is a real young man, however, is simply not supported by any of the literature. I'm going to ask you to stop reverting without actually looking at what I'm doing. I'm not trying to insert a minority viewpoint or throw anything into question, I'm trying to accurately reflect the work of serious Shakespearian studies that are already cited. Additionally, "the poet writes of" assumes the truth of loving language, which many scholars do not. I don't like using "some scholarship has ascribed," but I like even less "the poet writes of," which immediately assumes the points made. If you have any sources to add so that we can put names to this, I'm all for it, but simply reverting good-faith changes and disingenuously referring me to WP:WEASEL, as if the existing statement doesn't put words in the poet's mouth, is not acceptable. — chro • man • cer  21:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're at all familiar with Shakespeare studies, also, you may be aware that a few sources contend that some of the Fair Youth sequence is not, in fact, addressed to the same character. I don't have all my resources with me, but I think it would be unfair to claim that everyone treats this character as a singular entity. I would prefer if you would help me expand the article with references and points of debate, rather than assume I'm making bad-faith edits to embrace some sort of "the Fair Youth did not exist" POV and reverting all my work. — chro • man • cer  21:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree you need help, but first could you direct me to any of the "many scholars" who suggest the Sonnets do not contain "loving language"? Exok (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Loving language is one thing. Loving language directed to a specific person who exists is another. I'm not trying to dispute semantics. Also, you know, as charming as it is, sarcasm doesn't help your argument. — chro • man • cer  21:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If there are no scholars who suggest the Sonnets don't use loving language, it's regrettable that the article now states, "Some scholarship has ascribed romantic and loving sentiment to the language used". It also seems odd that while arguing that the fair youth may be a faulty convention since - according to you - Sonnets 1 - 126 could have multiple addressees, one of your other recent improvements is to capitalise the term throughout the article as if it were a proper noun. Exok (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing that the Fair Youth is a faulty convention. Being a convention, there is n. one, to my understanding, that argues that. "Some scholarship has ascribed romantic and loving sentiment to the language" is correct. The operative word here is sentiment. Some scholars argue that the language is to be interpreted as a literal sentiment of love towards a specific object. Some do not. Some exclusively view the sequence as a whole and derive their conclusions; some vociferously oppose this. Some ignore the issue entirely. As it's clear that these distinctions are not leaping clearly off the page, I'll rewrite it again. Either way, I hope you can agree that for a subject as murky as this is, the treatment of it in Wikipedia is sparse to the point of ignorance. As far as my capitalization goes, it was merely to standardize the usage, as in the beginning of the article it was lowercase, and at the end capitalized; there's no real guideline for how that's done in scholarly papers, and what I see most often is lowercase double quotes, i.e., 'Rowse here discusses his conclusions on the "fair youth."' — chro • man • cer  22:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Exok. You have new messages at Talk:Worcester.
Message added 11:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI - I shall shortly be proposing this photo for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated above, the photo has no connection to me and has clearly been uploaded in error over an existing file. Exok (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Exok. You have new messages at John's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Worcester

Hi. Please have the courtesy to either discuss moves like these on the article talk page or at WT:WORCS or at least to find a new slot in the infobox for the coat of arms. What you are doing is only half a job, and it will orphan a legitimate article image which will get deleted if it is not used. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I've begun a new section on the article's talk page. Exok (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think a photograph is an improvement over the coat of arms, but I'll save that for the Worcs talk page. There is something very odd about the way the photo has been uploaded - it appears to have over-written a previous unrelated image, giving the photo some unrelated tags and presumably putting the wrong picture into an article somewhere. Exok - did you upload it, or was it someone else? The Worcs photo should be uploaded to wikimedia in its own right, and the original picture (a portrait of someone) re-established. GyroMagician (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your message. No, the photo has no connection to me. Maybe Calr93 who originally put it on the article would benefit from your help Gyro? Exok (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and doing the fixes. I never doubted for a moment that Calr93 was acting in GF with his misplaced upload.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Exok. You have new messages at Talk:Hindhead Tunnel.
Message added 10:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hope this might help. I don't think the IPs quite "get it", but I do think the premiere is interesting/relevant/notable *if* there is a decent source. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and for opening up a discussion. Exok (talk) 10:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You are a supporter of Rebekah Brooks

And I hope that's the worst insult you ever receive in your life! Perhaps when she is sacked from News International, you and her could get a job together somewhere crushing babies into toothpaste.  :-) 188.28.134.139 (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You are a supporter of Rebekah Brooks

And I hope that's the worst insult you ever receive in your life! Perhaps when she is sacked from News International, you and her could get a job together somewhere crushing babies into toothpaste.  :-) 188.28.134.139 (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are opposed to the corporate morals of tabloid newspapers why would you try to vandalise a free encyclopaedia compiled by ordinary people? Exok (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to vandalise a free encyclopedia compiled by ordinary people. I was adding a comment to the talk page of an immoral individual at a time when it's appropriate to do such a thing. I wasn't vandalising her page, nor encouraging anybody to vandalise it, and the decent thing would have been for you to turn a blind eye in this instance.  :-) 188.28.134.139 (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not what talk pages are for, and you know it. Allowing defamatory material on a public space exposes the project to the risk of legal action, or at least time-consuming complaints. You're clearly very familiar with how things work around here, so why not channel your indignation into productive activity that would be of benefit to Wikipedia, a project that those you despise surely hate since it undermines both their power to influence and their means of making money? Exok (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it. Never mind. 188.29.183.80 (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, never mind. Exok (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What a grey, grizzly, lifeless exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.46.147 (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm so sorry it did not please you. Remember to sign and date your posts using four tildes (~) Exok (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Kind of you to say so. Please work harder next time. Here are your tildes 89.243.46.147 (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Ross Parker

Hi thanks for your help with the Murder of Ross Parker article. You identified some WP:IRRELEVANT issues in relation to recent additions. I very much agree with you as none of the sources provided for the content make any mention of Parker and I also reverted the additions of the same content. The user adding the material insists on restoring the material so perhaps you can take another look and further explain why the material is problematic. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, I've added a bit to the talkpage. I certainly agree with your position. Exok (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Unfortunately the problems are continuing and well sourced content is being removed. Also some rather unwelcome comments in the talk page. Would very appreciate it your input again.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I initially reverted the new edit, it's harder to defend the cite that was removed. I'll keep it watched and if it occurs to me that I could help, I will. Exok (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Hi! PSBmad 18:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks very much, just what I fancied. Hope you're having fun. Exok (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for yesterday's pie! :-) Vacarme (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Daniel Maier for deletion

OK, thanks for responding so considerately and I'm sorry if I sounded annoyed, but it's really frustrating that an article I've worked hard on and sourced well is up for deletion when there's so much rubbish on Wikipedia. I'll see if there are any interviews with him anywhere to add biographical detail. Should I move what I posted at the deletion page? If that's not the right place, where can I respond to the arguments in favour of deletion? Sorry, my contributions to Wikipedia tend to be with regard to people whose work I'm curious about, rather than being a fully-fledged member of the Wikipedia editing community so I'm not good at all the admin side (as in I posted this on my own Talk page). Bananamilkshakemaker (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Bananamilkshakemaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananamilkshakemaker (talk • contribs)

No need to apologise, not at all. I think what you've put on the deletion page is ok where it is. Sometimes there's a balance of Delete or Keep votes and people can be swayed by argument but maybe wait for a few days and see how things go? It might be we're the only people who contribute, or that other editors will robustly defend your work; no need to feel you're solely responsible for protecting it. I'm pretty sure the article will be safe, especially as you've addressed the issues of conflict of interest and using inline citations. I would no longer argue strongly to delete it, but I do believe the debate process works to improve things and so is positive for the article overall. Exok (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy Duncan

Hi Exok,

My collegue and I have been trying to update the wikipedia page on Andy Duncan but it keeps being 'undo'. We have included as many references as is appropriate but wonder if we are still doing something wrong?

It would be great if you could help.

Many thanks,

Charlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie simon (talk • contribs) 08:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Charlie, thanks for your very polite message. These issues are best dealt with on the article's talk page, where I've begun a discussion. Exok (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy Duncan

Thank you very much for your explanation Exok. I understand where you're coming from on this. I have edited the submission to be less about the company, and more about Andy's actions. I have also made it less 'promotional'. Let me know what you think — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom eck (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have sorted this out in the same week he left your company. Thanks for your message. Exok (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again

for your help on the AfD for Daniel Maier, it was much appreciated, and yes, it improved the article and I'm glad it was saved. THANK YOU. Bananamilkshakemaker (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)bananamilkshakemaker

B&Q

Hi, I noticed your post on the B&Q talk page. Just a heads-up; discussing the matter is futile (as you can see from the previous posts on that page) due to a single disruptive editor with a CLEAR agenda against the company. I had a go at dealing with the issue but got so disillusioned that I've pretty much given up on WP entirely. However, if you decided to have a go you need to start by addressing K.slauter's disruptiveness; you won't be able to make ANY changes to the page while they still have editing priviliges (then you'll need the page to be protected, as we've found out in the past). Good luck! raseaC^{talk to me} 20:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I certainly saw your previous efforts to improve the article, they're what encouraged me to have a go myself. Until an admin takes an interest in it I guess all any of us can do is add to the history of failed attempts at dispute-resolution. I don't have your patience or persistence, so I'm leaving it alone, but I appreciate your advice and I'm very sorry to hear being unable to tidy up something that is so obviously wrong has discouraged you. Exok (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Belated apology

I just re-read this thread and feel I owe you an apology for the tantrum I threw there. Also, you were of course absolutely correct in your assessment of the source and in your edits. --87.79.215.99 (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing to apologise for, but I appreciate it - thanks. Exok (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't apologise to him. He's a cretin of the first order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.231.73 (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha! I'd be pretty stupid to disagree with that. Exok (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

David Tennant

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at David Tennant. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Exok (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you were attempting to do at David Tennant because you left no edit summaries. In the absence of anything explaining your intention, the most obvious reason for deleting so much of the article is vandalism. If this was not the case I hope you will add this message to those from other editors requesting that you complete the edit summary for each change you make. Exok (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(Excuse me for my english, i'm french). I've done this because the awards normally go in the "filmography" section for the series actors, as for this actor, or this one. --Hyliad (d) 17:36, 24 november 2011 (TTC)

Your English doesn't seem to need any excuses at all. I felt your rearrangement also involved quite a lot of deletion but thanks for explaining it. Exok (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your edit on Felicity Kendall restoring the parenthetical info about her birthplace. I made my edit based on the fact that Brookie the editor who restored the version of the IP that I had reverted was an admin. As I had not encountered this User before I did not know what their reaction would be so I tried to find a middle ground but I may have been overreacting. I prefer the compromise version so I am glad to know that there are others who will back that up. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 15:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding like that. So long as it's accurate, more information seems better than less. Exok (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony Blair hatnote

Hi, I've restored it for now as there are topics unrelated to the subject on that page. I think this is something we need consensus on before making a final decision so you're welcome to add your thoughts to the talk page discussion, which will shortly open. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather an odd thing to post to a user talkpage, but fair enough. Exok (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I have no preference for the end result, but thought it worth getting some feedback as they're not all related. Also no objection also if you want an afd debate on the disambig page. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Just to let you know that i quoted your post at the RFC at and ANI about the recent conduct of Delicious carbuncle. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding.2C_attack_and_disruptive_editing_by_Delicious_carbuncle.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I wish there was a chance the outcome could possibly match the offence and trouble you've been caused, but it will only be further annoyance most likely. It's just horrible. Exok (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think things are bad so far then check out the latest on this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Shakehandsman. Absolutely shameful that anyone would endorse it, never mind an admin! Wikipedia certainly never fails to surprise. As well as the more obvious silly non-incidents listed, I also came out of some of the more complex ones with my reputation enhanced quite considerably.-Shakehandsman (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Update, it look like it still needs one more endorsement to become active, to be honest it would probably be an idea to endorse it myself so I can put this to bed rather than suffer ongoing harassment year after year after year from these people. Your thoughts would be appreciated.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Luckily the RFC has a talk page, I've posted there outlining the situation and also quoting your views. I hope you don't mind.[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Shakehandsman#Harassment]--Shakehandsman (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. My advice would be, so far as possible, to rise above it and to trust the community to respond appropriately. It might not be helpful, but it's worth remembering that there are personality types that are comforted by hostility: people who seek out conflict because they are so damaged they associate an angry response with memories of parental care. Such people will seek out upset and turmoil in order to re-experience a childhood that confuses and torments them. There is no response or sanction that will overcome this drive to cause the maximum possible unhappiness for others. Certainly if you examine the contributions history of some editors, you can see exactly this longing for disruption played out. You will never resolve it. All you can do is imagine the life they have offline and feel grateful not to share the same fate. Exok (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Some good advice there, although I'm not so sure about the whole "trust the community part" given my previous experiences here. There are some powerful cliques on Wikipedia and don't have the benefits of being a member of any of them.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal comments

Hi - I noticed you opining about editors mental health and their problems in childhood. I would request you to please remove these personal comments as they are unnecessary and overly personal and could be quite upsetting. Youreallycan (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheerfully amended. Thank you for pointing that out. Exok (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Tony Blair again

Generally it is considered good practice to allow a discussion to run for more than two days before making a decision, but I can't be bothered to argue about it. However, you might like to take this on board for any future debates you participate in. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

So long as there is a debate, fine. But as the person who reverted an edit supported by direct reference to policy, you were unable or unwilling to explain why the wp:hatnote guideline did not apply in this case and, unsurprisingly, nobody else did this for you. Where an editor insisting on a discussion does not state a position there is no reason for further delay. Exok (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of starting to sound boring I did actually state that not all the links on the page are related to Blair, and that was why I opened the discussion. Regardless of the hatnote guidelines it is generally accepted that if a discussion is opened on a subject then it remains active for at least a few days. As one who takes part in afd discussions, I have seen many of these attract little or no comment, but they are allowed to run their course. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept that discussion over an uncontentious edit is subject to the same constraints as the formal process of nominating an article for deletion, but I appreciate your decision to let things lie. I very much respect your opinion, experience and history of contributions and I'm sorry we couldn't agree on this occasion. Exok (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I guess life would be pretty dull if everybody agreed all of the time. I've actually read through the guidelines a couple of times and, even though I didn't agree, I can see your argument for removing it. Most subjects on the page are covered further on in the article anyway so nothing to fret about really. Cheers and happy editing Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Exok. You have new messages at Shakehandsman's talk page.
Message added 06:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shakehandsman (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shakehandsman

This notice is being sent to you because you participated in this RFC, which was placed on indefinite hold when the user who was the subject abruptly retired from Wikipedia. As of today that user has announed that they are no longer retired and are retuning to the project. This does not mean that the RFC must be re-opened, but it can be if anyone feels there is a need for the discussion to continue. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem and the Fae RfC

Exok, in my opinion, your comments accusing others of harassment for engaging in dispute resolution ("The stated context for this RfC is disingenuous, the primary motivation is harassment.") I have listed in this section in relation to the Fae RfC constitute an ad hominem attack on the drafters of the RfC. Since ad hominem arguments attack the character of the person (in an attempt to damage the credibility of their message), I believe such debate tactics violate WP:NPA. Also, an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, and thus provides little help in addressing the validity of the issues raised in the statement of dispute. Please refrain from ad hominem arguments in the future. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of this "warning", which Cla68 is spamming to multiple editors, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cla68 now posting "warnings" to editors. Please feel free to comment on this issue on that page. Prioryman (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Prioryman; huge respect for taking the trouble to deal seriously with this pest. Exok (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"appears to me to be harassment" might be more diplomatic than "is harassment". But I share your concern re these allegations of attacks - I've also had a drive by accusation by the same editor who seems to not be responding to any of the talkpage debates that they've opened. ϢereSpielChequers 15:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, of course; thanks for your message and guidance. It appears to me gaining attention is the goal of opening these discussions, rather than resolving differences. But I find it consoling even editors with your tact and experience have been subject to such accusations. Exok (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Meryl Streep, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page It's Complicated (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A1 road (London)

The bridge is notable for suicides, and there was a film made about it, which is mentioned in the cite (scroll down past the first Bridge film mention - the Archway Bridge film is further down). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The best place to discuss changes to the article is on the article's talk page. An eight minute short shown only once theatrically by a director who doesn't appear on IMDb is not notable and the exact proposals of the campaign to make the bridge safer is best featured - if at all - at the Suicide bridge article. I will copy this discussion to the talk page, where it is easily available to anyone contributing to the article, which this page is not. Exok (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Bidisha

Keep up your good work on the Bidisha article. I see you've had to deal with issues there for quite some time now.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I thank you for the kitty fillet, and your kind comments. Engleham (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)