![]() | 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 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
Hi Why do you not relist the AfD ? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
You deleted the page of the band Reno Divorce. Can you send me the text of that page? Thanks Johnny1971nl ( talk) 12:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
User:174.16.155.182 is on a one person campaign against perceived isms such as "anti-sex work", "fat shaming" and the term "gypsy". Never mind that at the time of the Black Dahlia murder and Ted Bundy, no one used the freaking term "sex worker" or "Romani". I'll ask others for help too Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 20:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, LucretiaIPRE here. The terms "prostitute" and "gypsy" are offensive and should not be used. I'm especially concerned with Jane Does who are IDed as "prostitutes"--these women are already dead, they don't need to be offended again. Also, it is unnecessary to say that a dead woman was "overweight," but not say that another woman is "thin." Again, they're already dead. How does this affect you? It doesn't. It's just giving dignity to the dead.
LucretiaIPRE (
talk)
20:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
User:LucretiaIPRE
Wikipedia is not censored - indeed, people might find the Whitechapel murders upsetting full stop, but it doesn't stop it being a FA here. Joy Division, another FA, doesn't directly use "prostitute", but House of Dolls, where the band got their name from, does it use it. Additionally, Ipswich serial murders, a Good Article also uses "prostitute" in the lead. If sources use the word "prostitute" and it is accurate, we should use if it gets the information across. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I have not edited it when used in a quote or in the title of a source. We no longer use offensive terms for Black or Asian people in these articles, even though they were used historically, so I don't quite understand how this is different. There's also no need to yell.
LucretiaIPRE (
talk)
20:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Forgetting the last two as an aside, I think somebody is up to no good and Lucretia has been acting a little on the
evil side.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
03:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, the confirmed sock that I mentioned above is a banned editor that many of us recognize by two names. This is interesting because I believe that another banned editor is involved unless the two turn out to be the same. There are similarities but I haven't done a thorough enough analysis for that comparison.
The thread Talk:Violence against prostitutes#We should be using 'sex worker' not 'prostitutes' was started by who also made this interesting edit for more political correctness as apparently committing suicide should be replaced by completing suicide. They also posted this at Online predator. Given that activity, I'm going to suggest that the IP is banned editor #2 who started this thread and sings the same tune as the above socks with this thread and also edited the Online predator article.
So did
banned editor #1 assist banned editor #2 by way of
this confirmed sock in
this thread or are they the same editor? If different, then one of the two is probably the sockmaster for the accounts that I listed above.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
14:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie, I need to break the news to you that the "of" is plain bad English, in any variety. It seems to occur most in AmEng. This redundancy is very different from "the inside of the cell", which involves quite different grmmar. Tony (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I know what edit summaries are - I use them all the time. Have a look at my contributions. If it's a minor edit, it isn't necessary. Please don't patronise me with a template message. Thanks. Cloudbound ( talk) 17:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding edit summaries. The thread is
Use of edit summaries. I think it would be good to open this discussion up. Thanks.
Cloudbound (
talk)
18:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Everyone needs a beer, every now and again. You are one of the good'uns - don't let it get to you Scr★pIron IV 20:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC) |
Favorite kitteh is here and is interested in purring in your lap when you feel grouchy. kthxbai
—
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
13:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Ritchie! Could you take a look at the article Twiddle (band) and see if it qualifies to stay here? I notice that it has been speedied twice before, but it now has at least one mainstream source (HuffPo). I came across it because I had to protect it - there's recently been ton of edit warring, inserting unsourced puffery, adding and removing albums, etc., from brand new SPAs. I don't know enough about band articles to know if it meets NBAND or not. Mind taking a look? Thanks! -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar – it's nice when somebody notices the little things, and barnstars are an underused reward. You keep up your good work, too!
Ira
Ira Leviton ( talk) 02:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
On 2 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Euston railway station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the navigator and cartographer Matthew Flinders is thought to be buried under Platform 15 at Euston railway station? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Euston railway station. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Euston railway station), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih Talk 00:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Usually I agree with you. Sorry I didn't today. -- Begoon 13:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Kinda flat, ain't it. Martinevans123 ( talk) 20:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Template:Chiltern Main Line RDT has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Jc86035 (
talk)
10:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Heyo, Ritchie. I've been given to understand you're knowledgeable about this sort of thing, so...been trying to improve this song article, to GA, if I can get it there. Found lots of great sources on the lyrics and music and impact that I'm still working through; but can't seem to find anything usable for the credits. Any advice? Vanamonde ( talk) 17:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I've added a fair amount of stuff to it and sent it to GAN; here's the link. If you're still able to review it, that'd be great. It's not perfect, but the basics are there, I think. Also, since we're on the subject, I wonder if you'd be interested in reviewing Music in the movement against apartheid at some point? It would be a larger project, obviously, so no hurry/no pressure; it's just that it's been languishing at GAN since February, and is a topic complex enough to make it difficult to find reviewers for. Vanamonde ( talk) 12:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, you brought up the Candice Hutchings AfD. I admit I could have handled that better. In particular, I shouldn't have started the COIN thread while the AfD was taking place - it came dangerously close to canvassing. An SPA tag would have been kinder and just as effective as the note I left under the voter's comment. That's not to say that the nomination or the COI concerns were not valid - I think they were then and still are, but the AfD was not the venue to raise them.
I would like to hear what other of my "approaches" you take issue with. I take all feedback to heart. Thanks, Rentier ( talk) 10:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you're active at the moment. Could you take a look at [6] and see if you could revoke TPA please? Thanks – 72 (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned you at a section I started at AN/I. The section heading is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Two.25.45.251. Yngvadottir ( talk) 18:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Careful analysis of timetabled movements from Waterloo. The published timetables do back it up, I just need to work out the most efficient way of inserting the citations, as SWR's service groups aren't split all that logically. There were some services straight up missing in the previous version, which I've added (Woking stoppers, Poole stoppers), some services which were simply non existant (an additional 4 fast tph to Guildford), but mainly I just rearranged the way in which existing services were described. 146.198.99.121 ( talk) 15:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Lost interest in creating this guys page, and no one else cares to edit it. Possible to delete?
AnsarAction ( talk) 16:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Should have listened to you first thought i could make an interesting biography not enough good sources. Also novice editor! Thanks. AnsarAction ( talk) 16:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello R. I wanted to make you aware that a couple IPs (but likely the same person) are reverting your edit here. You might want to start a talk page thread about your concerns. If not no worries. Best regards. MarnetteD| Talk 19:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I already changed the source, so there's no need for a protected. 174.192.30.131 ( talk) 19:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
I always assumed you were joking, actually- sorry about that! — fortuna velut luna 17:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC) |
What, on your RfA? Nope, absolutely serious - pretty sure MelanieN will co nom. Dr. Blofeld going for RfA was more of a wind-up, but that doesn't mean I don't think he could use the tools responsibly (he's got enough experience of working with tools after all, as I'm sure he'd admit). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
A82 road you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
The Rambling Man --
The Rambling Man (
talk)
09:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The article
A82 road you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:A82 road for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
The Rambling Man --
The Rambling Man (
talk)
10:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe UTRS access can be turned off, if you're a registered UTRS admin, by emailing utrs-admins@googlegroups.com with details. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie, How are you?
I have some doubts regarding A7. I tagged Josh Dean (writer) as there was no claim of notability (mentions writing at least two books and being editor at various notable magazines). The article had only a product listing for the book from the publisher itself as a reference. It's not independent and it provides no in-depth coverage about the author, so it does not contribute towards establishing notability. I did a quick search before tagging the article and I could not find anything significant either.
For future reference, I would like to know if I have to be more restrictive when tagging under A7. If an article without a valid claim of notability has at least one reference, even if it does not meet our criteria for establishing notability, should I refrain from using the A7 criteria?
Thank you for your advice. Regards. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 08:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Josh Dean Rolling Stone
brings up
his profile on RS' own website. That absolutely clears A7.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
09:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Just wanted to give you a heads up about it, I've recently made some changes to the sources and added more appropriate sources instead of the daily mail source stuff, I apologize for the misunderstanding about it, please try not to ask for it to be protected, because I helped fixed it and made it more appropriate. Thanks! 174.192.25.214 ( talk) 20:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I also apologize if my IP address keeps changing, my connection is really weird and my IP keeps on changing at random times. 174.192.25.214 ( talk) 20:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but however, MarnetteD keeps removing his personal life info ever since I changed it. He said the source I added can't be used, but Brandon wrote it himself on his website. 174.192.35.180 ( talk) 23:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I still wish you can help out resolve this situation and add it back with a better source, because I'm afraid he's gonna removed it again and remove his spouses in the infobox too. 174.192.35.180 ( talk) 23:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie, I saw you delcined the A7 I nom'd and mentioned merging it into another article. Which article were you thinking of? -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
1FA- or actually SweetFA :) - can you have a quick look at this request and advise what I need to do? I mean, I don't don't know how I've even got Harvard refs in there in the first place (I tend to object to them in principle)- but I totally agree about standardisation and consistency, etc. Thing is- how? and mre to the point is there an easy way to do it?! — fortuna velut luna 12:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
{{cite book
, copy the book source to the clipboard and move it to "References", making sure you have ref=harv
set. Then replace the citation with {{sfn|LastName|Year|p=page}}
. Repeat for each occurrence of the source. Then, do a search for <ref>
in case there are any bare book references at the end. See
this edit to
Mick Jagger, for example. In any case, the formatting of book sources is not part of the GA criteria, merely that the source has to be there and sufficiently detailed.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
12:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The article
A82 road you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:A82 road for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
The Rambling Man --
The Rambling Man (
talk)
13:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Medha Khole. hi, please see, thanks Govindaharihari ( talk) 17:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
wall of text |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Great idea. I had a look to see what benefits it would bring and this is what I found: Chris Bennett You can get the flavour of his editing from this: [7], [ [8] 5 February 2008 "It's more like abuse than vandalism" - arguing with an administrator who had just declined his protection request However, this editor is now deceased. Future Perfect at Sunrise His language was so foul the Arbitration Committee couldn't take it any more and de - sysopped him 22 February 2016 Suggested that it would be a good idea to report editors who do not vandalise for vandalism. Idea rejected by the administrator he was discussing it with Jusdafax 15 March 2010 Reverted an edit to Julian calendar claiming it was "vandalism". The edit
Jc3s5h For an example of abusive edit summaries see c:Special:Permalink/224981036#DEMAND TO UNDO EDIT 28th October 2009 Rollback is only to be used for reverting vandalism. He was warned about "clear abuse of rollback" and gave this flippant response:
13 February 2010 Alleged an editor introduced "incorrect information" into Julian calendar which appears "to be vandalism". The information was a statement by the Archbishop of Athens that some countries have not adopted the 400 - year leap year rule. He later tried to cover his back (see 9 March 2010 below) 16 February 2010 Alleged an editor is continuing "to vandalise pages". The edit he objected to explained that when converting between the Julian and Gregorian calendars you apply the difference to the calendar you are converting into. After reverting and threatening the editor he quietly added the information back. 9 March 2010 Uses a "vandalism" template to report an editor at AIV. Two minutes later he's back complaining the links don't work. The previous six edits by the editor complained about were to talk pages. Three minutes later an administrator rejects the complaint because no vandalism warning had been issued. To get Jc3s5h off his back administrator tells him he has issued the vandalism warning himself. One minute later he strikes the comment, pointing out that "In fact there is no vandalism, the repeating characters tag was just some dots." Jc3s5h isn't going to let the matter rest and decides on a spot of forum shopping. Nineteen minutes later he pitches up at ANI. Four minutes later he is told
He then starts canvassing Dirtlawyer 1 and Newyorkbrad. His question is:
Unsurprisingly, this guy has since driven the Vermont government up the wall with a claim that minor officials (like himself) should be able to register marriages. 2 May 2010 Issues a vandalism warning. The edit he objected to
2 June 2010 Reverted a talk page edit claiming it is vandalism. Reverted an edit to Easter claiming it is vandalism. He thereby
Reverted an edit to Computus claiming it is vandalism. He thereby
I haven't progressed this investigation any further because it gets worse and worse as you go on. 86.176.18.240 ( talk) 13:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC) |
It appears the IP you blocked for one week has a new IP and is back edit warring over Battle of Mu'tah, Early Muslim conquests, and Byzantine–Sasanian wars. Also, as evidence this is the same person, when warned of disruptive editing, they troll my talk page by copying & pasting the same message. Blocked IP new IP
Do you want I should file another EW report, since this is becoming more harassment and personal attack(s)[ [9] [10] [11], than anything else now. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 03:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You've just reverted my edit with the comment "British English, please". I am British, and I always try to write accordingly. As far as I can tell, my minor edit had nothing to do with British English. Help me to understand. Eric Blatant ( talk) 15:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
"Corporate entities take the singular: eg The BBC has decided (not “have”). In subsequent references make sure the pronoun is singular: “It [not “they”] will press for an increase in the licence fee.” Sports teams and rock bands are the exception – “England have an uphill task” is OK, as is “Nirvana were overrated”"
In reverting the edit wholesale, you also reverted other unrelated changes. May I respectfully ask you to revert your revert? (I don't agree that Nirvana were overrated, incldentally). Eric Blatant ( talk) 10:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | 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 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
Hi Why do you not relist the AfD ? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 00:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
You deleted the page of the band Reno Divorce. Can you send me the text of that page? Thanks Johnny1971nl ( talk) 12:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
User:174.16.155.182 is on a one person campaign against perceived isms such as "anti-sex work", "fat shaming" and the term "gypsy". Never mind that at the time of the Black Dahlia murder and Ted Bundy, no one used the freaking term "sex worker" or "Romani". I'll ask others for help too Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 20:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, LucretiaIPRE here. The terms "prostitute" and "gypsy" are offensive and should not be used. I'm especially concerned with Jane Does who are IDed as "prostitutes"--these women are already dead, they don't need to be offended again. Also, it is unnecessary to say that a dead woman was "overweight," but not say that another woman is "thin." Again, they're already dead. How does this affect you? It doesn't. It's just giving dignity to the dead.
LucretiaIPRE (
talk)
20:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
User:LucretiaIPRE
Wikipedia is not censored - indeed, people might find the Whitechapel murders upsetting full stop, but it doesn't stop it being a FA here. Joy Division, another FA, doesn't directly use "prostitute", but House of Dolls, where the band got their name from, does it use it. Additionally, Ipswich serial murders, a Good Article also uses "prostitute" in the lead. If sources use the word "prostitute" and it is accurate, we should use if it gets the information across. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I have not edited it when used in a quote or in the title of a source. We no longer use offensive terms for Black or Asian people in these articles, even though they were used historically, so I don't quite understand how this is different. There's also no need to yell.
LucretiaIPRE (
talk)
20:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Forgetting the last two as an aside, I think somebody is up to no good and Lucretia has been acting a little on the
evil side.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
03:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, the confirmed sock that I mentioned above is a banned editor that many of us recognize by two names. This is interesting because I believe that another banned editor is involved unless the two turn out to be the same. There are similarities but I haven't done a thorough enough analysis for that comparison.
The thread Talk:Violence against prostitutes#We should be using 'sex worker' not 'prostitutes' was started by who also made this interesting edit for more political correctness as apparently committing suicide should be replaced by completing suicide. They also posted this at Online predator. Given that activity, I'm going to suggest that the IP is banned editor #2 who started this thread and sings the same tune as the above socks with this thread and also edited the Online predator article.
So did
banned editor #1 assist banned editor #2 by way of
this confirmed sock in
this thread or are they the same editor? If different, then one of the two is probably the sockmaster for the accounts that I listed above.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
14:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie, I need to break the news to you that the "of" is plain bad English, in any variety. It seems to occur most in AmEng. This redundancy is very different from "the inside of the cell", which involves quite different grmmar. Tony (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I know what edit summaries are - I use them all the time. Have a look at my contributions. If it's a minor edit, it isn't necessary. Please don't patronise me with a template message. Thanks. Cloudbound ( talk) 17:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding edit summaries. The thread is
Use of edit summaries. I think it would be good to open this discussion up. Thanks.
Cloudbound (
talk)
18:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Everyone needs a beer, every now and again. You are one of the good'uns - don't let it get to you Scr★pIron IV 20:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC) |
Favorite kitteh is here and is interested in purring in your lap when you feel grouchy. kthxbai
—
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk)
13:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Ritchie! Could you take a look at the article Twiddle (band) and see if it qualifies to stay here? I notice that it has been speedied twice before, but it now has at least one mainstream source (HuffPo). I came across it because I had to protect it - there's recently been ton of edit warring, inserting unsourced puffery, adding and removing albums, etc., from brand new SPAs. I don't know enough about band articles to know if it meets NBAND or not. Mind taking a look? Thanks! -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar – it's nice when somebody notices the little things, and barnstars are an underused reward. You keep up your good work, too!
Ira
Ira Leviton ( talk) 02:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
On 2 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Euston railway station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the navigator and cartographer Matthew Flinders is thought to be buried under Platform 15 at Euston railway station? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Euston railway station. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Euston railway station), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih Talk 00:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Usually I agree with you. Sorry I didn't today. -- Begoon 13:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Kinda flat, ain't it. Martinevans123 ( talk) 20:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Template:Chiltern Main Line RDT has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Jc86035 (
talk)
10:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Heyo, Ritchie. I've been given to understand you're knowledgeable about this sort of thing, so...been trying to improve this song article, to GA, if I can get it there. Found lots of great sources on the lyrics and music and impact that I'm still working through; but can't seem to find anything usable for the credits. Any advice? Vanamonde ( talk) 17:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I've added a fair amount of stuff to it and sent it to GAN; here's the link. If you're still able to review it, that'd be great. It's not perfect, but the basics are there, I think. Also, since we're on the subject, I wonder if you'd be interested in reviewing Music in the movement against apartheid at some point? It would be a larger project, obviously, so no hurry/no pressure; it's just that it's been languishing at GAN since February, and is a topic complex enough to make it difficult to find reviewers for. Vanamonde ( talk) 12:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ritchie333, you brought up the Candice Hutchings AfD. I admit I could have handled that better. In particular, I shouldn't have started the COIN thread while the AfD was taking place - it came dangerously close to canvassing. An SPA tag would have been kinder and just as effective as the note I left under the voter's comment. That's not to say that the nomination or the COI concerns were not valid - I think they were then and still are, but the AfD was not the venue to raise them.
I would like to hear what other of my "approaches" you take issue with. I take all feedback to heart. Thanks, Rentier ( talk) 10:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you're active at the moment. Could you take a look at [6] and see if you could revoke TPA please? Thanks – 72 (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned you at a section I started at AN/I. The section heading is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Two.25.45.251. Yngvadottir ( talk) 18:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Careful analysis of timetabled movements from Waterloo. The published timetables do back it up, I just need to work out the most efficient way of inserting the citations, as SWR's service groups aren't split all that logically. There were some services straight up missing in the previous version, which I've added (Woking stoppers, Poole stoppers), some services which were simply non existant (an additional 4 fast tph to Guildford), but mainly I just rearranged the way in which existing services were described. 146.198.99.121 ( talk) 15:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Lost interest in creating this guys page, and no one else cares to edit it. Possible to delete?
AnsarAction ( talk) 16:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Should have listened to you first thought i could make an interesting biography not enough good sources. Also novice editor! Thanks. AnsarAction ( talk) 16:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello R. I wanted to make you aware that a couple IPs (but likely the same person) are reverting your edit here. You might want to start a talk page thread about your concerns. If not no worries. Best regards. MarnetteD| Talk 19:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I already changed the source, so there's no need for a protected. 174.192.30.131 ( talk) 19:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
I always assumed you were joking, actually- sorry about that! — fortuna velut luna 17:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC) |
What, on your RfA? Nope, absolutely serious - pretty sure MelanieN will co nom. Dr. Blofeld going for RfA was more of a wind-up, but that doesn't mean I don't think he could use the tools responsibly (he's got enough experience of working with tools after all, as I'm sure he'd admit). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
A82 road you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
The Rambling Man --
The Rambling Man (
talk)
09:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The article
A82 road you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See
Talk:A82 road for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
The Rambling Man --
The Rambling Man (
talk)
10:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe UTRS access can be turned off, if you're a registered UTRS admin, by emailing utrs-admins@googlegroups.com with details. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie, How are you?
I have some doubts regarding A7. I tagged Josh Dean (writer) as there was no claim of notability (mentions writing at least two books and being editor at various notable magazines). The article had only a product listing for the book from the publisher itself as a reference. It's not independent and it provides no in-depth coverage about the author, so it does not contribute towards establishing notability. I did a quick search before tagging the article and I could not find anything significant either.
For future reference, I would like to know if I have to be more restrictive when tagging under A7. If an article without a valid claim of notability has at least one reference, even if it does not meet our criteria for establishing notability, should I refrain from using the A7 criteria?
Thank you for your advice. Regards. -- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 08:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Josh Dean Rolling Stone
brings up
his profile on RS' own website. That absolutely clears A7.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
09:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Just wanted to give you a heads up about it, I've recently made some changes to the sources and added more appropriate sources instead of the daily mail source stuff, I apologize for the misunderstanding about it, please try not to ask for it to be protected, because I helped fixed it and made it more appropriate. Thanks! 174.192.25.214 ( talk) 20:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I also apologize if my IP address keeps changing, my connection is really weird and my IP keeps on changing at random times. 174.192.25.214 ( talk) 20:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but however, MarnetteD keeps removing his personal life info ever since I changed it. He said the source I added can't be used, but Brandon wrote it himself on his website. 174.192.35.180 ( talk) 23:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I still wish you can help out resolve this situation and add it back with a better source, because I'm afraid he's gonna removed it again and remove his spouses in the infobox too. 174.192.35.180 ( talk) 23:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ritchie, I saw you delcined the A7 I nom'd and mentioned merging it into another article. Which article were you thinking of? -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
1FA- or actually SweetFA :) - can you have a quick look at this request and advise what I need to do? I mean, I don't don't know how I've even got Harvard refs in there in the first place (I tend to object to them in principle)- but I totally agree about standardisation and consistency, etc. Thing is- how? and mre to the point is there an easy way to do it?! — fortuna velut luna 12:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
{{cite book
, copy the book source to the clipboard and move it to "References", making sure you have ref=harv
set. Then replace the citation with {{sfn|LastName|Year|p=page}}
. Repeat for each occurrence of the source. Then, do a search for <ref>
in case there are any bare book references at the end. See
this edit to
Mick Jagger, for example. In any case, the formatting of book sources is not part of the GA criteria, merely that the source has to be there and sufficiently detailed.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
12:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The article
A82 road you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:A82 road for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
The Rambling Man --
The Rambling Man (
talk)
13:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Medha Khole. hi, please see, thanks Govindaharihari ( talk) 17:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
wall of text |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Great idea. I had a look to see what benefits it would bring and this is what I found: Chris Bennett You can get the flavour of his editing from this: [7], [ [8] 5 February 2008 "It's more like abuse than vandalism" - arguing with an administrator who had just declined his protection request However, this editor is now deceased. Future Perfect at Sunrise His language was so foul the Arbitration Committee couldn't take it any more and de - sysopped him 22 February 2016 Suggested that it would be a good idea to report editors who do not vandalise for vandalism. Idea rejected by the administrator he was discussing it with Jusdafax 15 March 2010 Reverted an edit to Julian calendar claiming it was "vandalism". The edit
Jc3s5h For an example of abusive edit summaries see c:Special:Permalink/224981036#DEMAND TO UNDO EDIT 28th October 2009 Rollback is only to be used for reverting vandalism. He was warned about "clear abuse of rollback" and gave this flippant response:
13 February 2010 Alleged an editor introduced "incorrect information" into Julian calendar which appears "to be vandalism". The information was a statement by the Archbishop of Athens that some countries have not adopted the 400 - year leap year rule. He later tried to cover his back (see 9 March 2010 below) 16 February 2010 Alleged an editor is continuing "to vandalise pages". The edit he objected to explained that when converting between the Julian and Gregorian calendars you apply the difference to the calendar you are converting into. After reverting and threatening the editor he quietly added the information back. 9 March 2010 Uses a "vandalism" template to report an editor at AIV. Two minutes later he's back complaining the links don't work. The previous six edits by the editor complained about were to talk pages. Three minutes later an administrator rejects the complaint because no vandalism warning had been issued. To get Jc3s5h off his back administrator tells him he has issued the vandalism warning himself. One minute later he strikes the comment, pointing out that "In fact there is no vandalism, the repeating characters tag was just some dots." Jc3s5h isn't going to let the matter rest and decides on a spot of forum shopping. Nineteen minutes later he pitches up at ANI. Four minutes later he is told
He then starts canvassing Dirtlawyer 1 and Newyorkbrad. His question is:
Unsurprisingly, this guy has since driven the Vermont government up the wall with a claim that minor officials (like himself) should be able to register marriages. 2 May 2010 Issues a vandalism warning. The edit he objected to
2 June 2010 Reverted a talk page edit claiming it is vandalism. Reverted an edit to Easter claiming it is vandalism. He thereby
Reverted an edit to Computus claiming it is vandalism. He thereby
I haven't progressed this investigation any further because it gets worse and worse as you go on. 86.176.18.240 ( talk) 13:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC) |
It appears the IP you blocked for one week has a new IP and is back edit warring over Battle of Mu'tah, Early Muslim conquests, and Byzantine–Sasanian wars. Also, as evidence this is the same person, when warned of disruptive editing, they troll my talk page by copying & pasting the same message. Blocked IP new IP
Do you want I should file another EW report, since this is becoming more harassment and personal attack(s)[ [9] [10] [11], than anything else now. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 03:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You've just reverted my edit with the comment "British English, please". I am British, and I always try to write accordingly. As far as I can tell, my minor edit had nothing to do with British English. Help me to understand. Eric Blatant ( talk) 15:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
"Corporate entities take the singular: eg The BBC has decided (not “have”). In subsequent references make sure the pronoun is singular: “It [not “they”] will press for an increase in the licence fee.” Sports teams and rock bands are the exception – “England have an uphill task” is OK, as is “Nirvana were overrated”"
In reverting the edit wholesale, you also reverted other unrelated changes. May I respectfully ask you to revert your revert? (I don't agree that Nirvana were overrated, incldentally). Eric Blatant ( talk) 10:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)