User talk:Wintonian/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Hello, Wintonian, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

7107delicious

Happy editing! _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

tag

Hi, you did the correct thing exactly with your question, it is a fair question and discussion and questioning will get you a long way here, regarding the tag, as you discovered it is only a locater for an interest group, with living people I myself like to see a strong connection which in this case considering the situation and the result that it affected his career and all then I can support the template sitting there, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your query at WT:EAR#Current Notability: Martin Tod

Hi, I have raised this issue at WT:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Articles on Prospective Parliamentary Candidates for Election 2010, if you are interested. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Boy Like You

You said "article on this album already exists." The article is about a song not an album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain ...

... these edits: [1], [2], [3]? Paul August ☎ 02:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. Paul August ☎ 01:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And again. Paul August ☎ 02:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Again. Paul August ☎ 02:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet again. Paul August ☎ 02:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:76.18.82.188

Hi! Yes, I created the page. But I only left a vandal warning when patrolling and had nothing to do the content IP wrote on his/her talk page. It would be grateful if you strike or remove the message on my talk page, if it's allowed. I don't like that warning sign on my talk page. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw you removed the notification from my talk page. I understand now. That was what Twincle did, wasn't it? Twincle does not tell if it's an article or a user's talk page. Thank you anyway. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Carr (politician)

Thanks for the heads up. I've redirected it again. I also found an article for Jesse Norman, another candidate for the constituency so I've redirected that too. Whichever one wins can be restored. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Anna Soubry

Was also a presenter on East Midlands TV, would that and the fact she'll probably be an MP within two months, be enough reason to not redirect her. I know WP is not a crystal ball, but now just before an election does not sem the best time to get rid PPCs Bevo74 (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Come May/June time a purge will probably needed of 'politicians'. Bevo74 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Alzarian16

Message recived --Wintonian (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Harlem

Thanks. Was just clicking in to remove the leftover vandalism when you popped in. Nice to know I'm not the only one looking closely. Regards, --Manway (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Collin Moshman

A tag has been placed on Collin Moshman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Wintonian (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dorble.com

A tag has been placed on Dorble.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Attack pages

Thanks for tagging Samuel cheeseman just now, but with a nasty personal attack like that there is a better tag to use: the thing to do is, blank the whole article and replace it with {{db-attack}} (or {{db-atk}}). That gets the attack off the screen quickly, so the attacker can't giggle over it or show it to people, puts it in a high-priority queue for admin attention, and generates a suitably fierce warning for you to copy to the attacker's talk page. Keep up the good work - New Page Patrol needs all the eyes it can get. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD redirects of politican articles

We work by WP:CONSENSUS here, which means that other people get an opportunity to participate in the discussion about removing articles. An essential part of that is notifying them that an article is being considered for removal, and that means going through AfD, not just wiping pages or replacing them with redirects. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice

You asked for some advice on your userpage as a newbie - here you go. Take your juvenile antifa efforts away from wikipedia. This is not the place. You want to feel like a revolutionary, fine. Deleting notable articles is not the way to do it. Thanks and best regards. Jstriker (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bankruptcy attorneys, PLLC

Why bother with an AFD when it so clearly meets the speedy deletion criteria? 76.102.27.141 (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Forum on Health deletion

Could you point me to the differences between the imedix definitino and forum on health definition that was deleted? I modified the entry since yesterday to avoid any blog / webpage - it was information about a company. I am having trouble understanding why my entry was removed in comparison to imedix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomstachura (talk • contribs) 17:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:

Rollback gives you access to certain tools, including Huggle, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'll drive slowly to start with. --Wintonian (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding e-mails

Hi Wintonian!

I have declined your speedy nominations of a user page and user talk page containing the editor's e-mail address. There are valid reasons for an editor to have their e-mail address on their user page, user talk page, or both, and many users choose to do so. There is generally no need to delete or oversight such pages. For example, Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) displays his email address on his userpage, and it has yet to be deleted :) decltype (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, though I was unclear whether this was allowed after reading the relevant part of WP:UP#SUB so I referred to: WP:Personal information for clarification and obviously got it wrong. Is there any where that we can take pages like this so clarification can be discussed? --Wintonian (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize. If there's reason to believe that the user in question may have inadvertently revealed personal information, or because he or she may not be fully aware of the possible consequences (as in the case of a young, inexperienced editor), it is definitely best to err on the side of caution - and it is for this reason the guideline is worded this way; to allow editors to take the necessary steps to protect other's privacy when they are not capable of doing so themselves. Josh Sundquist, on the other hand, is a public figure, and that is his official email,[4] so there is every reason to believe he's aware of the ramifications of publishing it here.

In the future, if you see private information that you believe needs swift removal - such as the address or phone number of a minor, simply redact the information with a neutral edit summary, and e-mail WP:OVERSIGHT. Putting it on the noticeboards only attracts more attention to it. Regards, decltype (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know he was a public figure. Thanks for the advice, so what do we do with non minors who aren’t public figures? --Wintonian (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule - but you should be aware that it is common practice for editors to put e-mail addresses on their user page or user talk page (or in the edit notice, like me[5]), and in most cases it doesn't warrant suppression. But if in doubt, do not hesitate to e-mail oversight, especially if you believe it meets any of the WP:RFO criteria - an oversighter will determine whether the material needs to be permanently removed. decltype (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the revert on my talk page! Elockid ^(Talk) 23:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No probs, I had a vandal yesterday who I warned a few times so they came and vandalised my user page, which I caught, by which time they already had a final warning so huggle sent a little report to WP:AIV. --Wintonian (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you do find that you want your userpage to be protected, you can message me anytime and I can protect it. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that’s kind of you, but if a user is going to go around vandalising user pages then I doubt they’ll be around for long. Of course I could always end up in a nasty edit war, though using the 1RR I hope to avoid that.Wintonian (talk)

Most stop. But, some vandals are very determined and don't know when to quit. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Will Wirklich Toll HoffeЯt

Is there a reason you removed the speedy template from this article? 65.12.38.159 (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No sorry, did it by mistake, I was just about to undo my revert and replace the tag when you got there first. --Wintonian (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For reverting this vandalism on my user page, this barnstar is for you. Thank you! The Utahraptor ^Talk 13:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! my first Barnstar - Looks like I'll have to find more vandlised user pages.--Wintonian (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. And once again, thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. The Utahraptor ^Talk 20:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor Review

Hi! I have reviewed you. If you have any questions/comments, leave me a message on my talk page. Homework2 ^Talk What I do! 02:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II on the PC

The reliable source is here. And on Wookieepedia they tell that the PC version will be developed by Aspyr. 84.86.199.99 (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Have I done something or made a comment somewhere? I'm sorry but I can't remember doing or saying anything in regards to this, could you please enlighten me? --Wintonian (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted as user is blocked for spamming talk pages, so I left no talkback.--Wintonian (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Falsely reverting my correct edit and falsely calling it vandalism

Hey, that is the name of the band Scott Hull was in. Google it if you don't believe me and see who was in the band. I was actually fixing previous vandalism where someone changed the name. How is it that you think "Anal Cunt" is not a real band, but you think that "Anal Faget" is ?121.73.179.170 (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am reverting it back to the correct name of the band. Do not change it again.121.73.179.170 (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Where's the part

~~Where's the part of the page where I say go scr ew as spie? FOUR SQUIGGLIES not an as spie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.60 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)~~

~~You typed "a s s p i e" at the bottom of the page here: [6] for no appernt reason, if there is a valid reason for this edit then we can talk about it. --Wintonian (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)~~

Deleted as user is blocked for vandalism, possibly regarding their attempts here so I don't realy expect a reply (if at all) untill the block is lifted. --Wintonian (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wintonian. You have new messages at Schuhpuppe's talk page.
Message added 17:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Total Drama World Tour

I reverted the edits you accepted at Total Drama World Tour due to a number of problems:

The unexplained change of Duncan from elimination before joining a team to remaining in the game on Team Amazon
The capitalization error "Team amazon"[sic]
The speculation that DJ wins the entire season
The speculation that Gwen quits in episode 5

Numbers 3 and 4 carried the most weight in the revert—and were accepted by a different editor—but none of the edits were improvements that I could see. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok I know nothing about the subject, so long as I haven’t messed up the pending changes thing then that’s ok. As the revert was so soon after I accepted the edits I got a little worried that I missed something obvious. --Wintonian (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching the articles related to this show for a while. One of the problems is people putting in predictions/speculations about the outcome before episodes actually air. That's a big reason the article got protected. That's also true of a lot of TV show articles: people guessing about plotlines, putting in rumoured episode titles, or the like, before reliable sources are available. No worries, but it's something to keep in mind with TV show articles. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Massacre Canyon- overzealousness

The article was all of 2 minutes old when you slap these tags on it {{expand}} {{npov}} {{refimprove}}. Needless to say its irritating.

Of course it needs to be expanded. I was in the process of doing that.
NPOV ? That makes no sense. The facts are what they are. Sioux war party ambushed a Pawnee hunting party.
refimprove ? See number 1.

I have a very simple philosophy " Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". Would it irritate you for someone to slap a tag on something you started after only 2 minutes? 7mike5000 (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok I admit I forgot to look and see how old the article was. Article tags can always me removed with no harm done. To me the article seemed to lack balance and therefore looked a little one sided, but you know the subject better than me, so again the tag can always be removed if it is not appropriate. and no it wouldn't irritate me as when I have finished with it I can allway change/ remove the tags as appropreate, but then diffrent pepole work in diffrent ways --Wintonian (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Expansion?

How is suppose to be expanded an article that already show all it says have to be? I think, for your talking, that you are overreacting or something! Oscar987 02:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For example the details for the Dominican Republic seem complete, though from some country’s the details are completely missing as are the references for some. If you haven’t got the details to fill in then other editors might either now or in the future. I hope that helps. --Wintonian (talk) 02:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just a note about your reversion of a recent edit in Organ donation that you identified as vandalism. Wikipedia defines vandalism fairly clearly, stating that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism."

User:Azmansell's insertion of a link to a campaign for opt-out organ donation doesn't remotely fit the definition, inappropriate as it might have been in that instance. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism with regards to spam is defend at WP:VANDTYPES as; "Adding or continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism, or sites that have some relationship to the subject matter, but advertise or promote in the user's interest, or text that promotes one's personal interests." Admittedly I should have warned the user for inserting inappropriate links first. Also their creation of [[Donna Mansell] caught my eye leading me to believe that the users main reason for inserting the link was for promotional soapbox reasons thus calling them good faith edits didn't spring to mind. Regards, --Wintonian (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)