I have set up an archive for you, per the request on my talk page. In the future, just cut-and-paste any old discussions from your talk page here and paste them into the archive page I created for you. Some pages you might want to read include
WP:USERPAGE and
WP:SUBPAGE which help explain more about how to maintain your userspace... --
Jayron32.
talk.
contribs 15:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Statistics
In the 1 day or 24 hours before the Jimmy Wales talk page was protected there were 69 edits. 5 of them were edits where someone removed comments or information that someone else had added, I assume because they thought the comment was disruptive or trolling etc. 1 of those 5 was someone removing their own comment, I think because they had added it to the wrong section
These are the ones where something significant was removed or reverted, i.e. the "diffs" where the new version has a paragraph missing or a whole edit that someone else added missing. I.e. a big block of yellow
[1] SBPrakash reverted her or him self for putting information in the wrong section
[2] Doc glasgow removed a question that had a source by an IP address asking why there was "no mention of his alleged expense "rort"
[3] Doc glasgow removed the same question as above after an administrator had put it back
[4] GRBerry removed a list of news article headings without links that looks more like a rant than an attempt to add sources
[5] Doc glasgow removed a ranting question asking why the "expenses rort" information wasn't included
There were 69 to go through so I had to automate the process, so I might have missed some. I don't think I did though. So by one very simplified way of looking at it there were 4 disruptions that someone thought were serious enough to remove. If you're interested, read them and see if you think they should cause the page to be protected.
AntHolnes (
talk) 17:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Happy First Day of Spring!
Happy First Day of Spring!
A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring BloomTheres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Ha! and thanks for adding references to
SS Kiche Maru. I noticed that one reference ((1879) Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute. United States Naval Institute, 1239.) bears an 1879 publication date, whereas the typhoon took place in 1912. Is a date available for the edition that refers to the sinking of Kiche? Best regards,
Fg2 (
talk) 01:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't have the date of that specific issue - I used the ISBN and the Template Builder at
Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Tools to build the cite and it's given that date. It's also the date Google Books gives. The reference has an URL to the publication at Google Books within it though, if you want to read it. It lists other dates of 1904, 1912 and 1905 in the snippet. Is it possible the proceedings were first published in 1879 and were then reissued each year?
Ha! (
talk) 02:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)reply
That's a possibility. I don't have specifics, though. Thanks again.
Fg2 (
talk) 05:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I was wrong about getting the date from the ISBN. I got the reference from the Google Books URL the reference links to and it doesn't have an ISBN listed there so I can't have (and they didn't have ISBN's then anyway) It's likely Google Books just has the wrong date, I'll remove it.
Ha! (
talk) 08:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Hi Ha, no I can't remember the 'maritime/merchant' website that had Kichemaru info. right off hand. I'll post it when I come across it again. I saw the wiki article you started on the S.S DAKOTA. Thanks for that, she's a ship worth remembering. I don't know if you know it or not but there's a striking photo of DAKOTA sinking by the bow eerily like the Titanic. Maybe it can be cleared and used for Wikipedia. It's at this URL:
www.cthistoryonline.org/cdm-cho/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/cho&CISOPTR=9318&CISOBOX I never saw this photo before and found it while searching Altavista for the Kichemaru/merchant website. I always logged onto Altavista years ago for the Kichemaru site and it was always there so I went back searching. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Koplimek (
talk •
contribs) 12:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)reply
That's a striking image. It looks like it's copyrighted so it probably can't be used as an image directly in the article but it's worth adding to the external links. The original is probably not under copyrighted any more though - I wonder where it is
Ha! (
talk) 14:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Hey Ha! Thanks for the tagging work. I must confess I was mighty confused when I saw the above article tagged by you with {{
db-imgcopyvio}}. If this wasn't just a mixup, please note that that tag is for an image file that has been uploaded in violation of someone's copyright. For text that violates copyrighted material, use {{
db-copyvio}}. Cheers!--
Fuhghettaboutit (
talk) 02:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Ah, that'll be why I got confused when trying to add an URL to the tag. Thanks for the heads up.
Ha! (
talk) 12:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)reply
S.S. Valencia
Hi again Ha, have you ever heard of a steamship called the S.S. Valencia? She was wrecked January 22 1906 off Canada. The famous phrase "Nearer My God to Thee" was allegedly sung by the passengers on this ship as they awaited rescue before dying and re-counted by passengers of Titanic remembering Valencia from newspaper articles. Here's a URL with some stats on this horrible disaster:
[6]. Some Canadian filmmakers were supposed to be making a documentary on this tragedy. Maybe this is another ship/disaster that deserves a Wiki article.
Koplimek (
talk) 12:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)reply
It looks like there already is an article on it at
SS Valencia. You seem to know a lot about steamships, I wonder if there are any more out there that are notable - perhaps we could collaborate on creating an article or two related to them?
Ha! (
talk) 14:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)reply
wow! thanks for that Ha. I didn't know an article existed here about the Valencia. I should've known though. It's been a while since I even checked Wiki about Valencia. Seems the article has been around since late 2006, a little over a year. I've always typed in "S.S. Valencia" or plain "Valencia" looking for a disambugation. But these two terms will yield nothing. Yes, shipwrecks are interesting, most people are familiar with the Titanic, Lusitania, Morro Castle, Andrea Doria. Those famous wrecks impels one to look at and search lesser known wrecks like Kiche Maru, Niagara, Corsican, Vestris. I wish someone would find the S.S. Waratah(1909) lost on maiden voyage I believe, without a trace. All of us(meaning us posters) are going to have to do some good searching to find info on Kichemaru ie photo. Everyone has to be patient. I believe info will start surfacing soon when we all look. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Koplimek (
talk •
contribs) 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Speedy tag removed
Hey there. That
Airnav article probably will be worth expanding, as it's on almost every airport article as a reference link. I cleaned up and tagged, let me know what you think - I could be wrong on this, but seems notable.
Tan |
39 00:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply
OK. I'll see if I can help expanding it.
Ha! (
talk) 00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)reply
SS Dakota Prairie Public Radio
hey Ha, I tried, am still trying to download the Prairie Public Radio broadcast about the SS Dakota you included in the references. It's not playing in Windows or Mozilla. If it's playing on your end please let me know how I can download the program. I love the Prairie Public Radio broadcasts even though they provide the transcript of what's actually being aired. To hear another one of their broadcasts that I uploaded a year or two ago, go to pioneer aviator
Arch Hoxsey in the links section of his page. This particular pilot made the first airplane flight in the state in 1910. I'd love to hear some more of these, they are very educational. Thanks Ha.
Koplimek (
talk) 15:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Ha I found that the Prairie Public radio program for February 6 2006(linked on my talk page) plays just fine. It the linked Prairie Public radio program for March 3 2006 in the SS Dakota reference section that doesn't play. Thanks once again.
Koplimek (
talk) 16:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Yea, you're right, it doesn't play. I couldn't find the link you mentioned though.
Ha! (
talk) 00:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I put the page up, if you want you can help me with expanding it and adding references.
Cyzor (
talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Vandalism warnings
Hi. Thanks for your work in vandal patrol. Please be sure to sign your warnings by typing four tildes (~~~~) so admins looking at your warnings can easily tell when they were left relative to the user's edits. Thanks.
Toddst1 (
talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I fixed the few I missed. Thanks for the heads up.
Ha! (
talk) 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Welsh Premier
The short answer is no - only two clubs claim to be professional out of 18 and no club manages an average attendance of over 800.
[7]пﮟოьεԻ57 07:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm not trying to delete it, hence the misunderstanding.
Someone else (not me) placed a speedy deletion tag on it
[9] because you didn't specify the precise source.
I noticed the speedy deletion tag, found the original page the image was on at flickr, added the source to the Wikipedia image page and removed the speedy deletion tag, so your image wouldn't be deleted
[10]
I then copied the image from Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons
[11] as it's a good idea
(see bottom of Wikipedia upload page) to upload images onto Wikimedia Commons instead of Wikipedia, as
Mangojuice suggested on your talk page in May last year
[12].
Then I added a tag to the Wikipedia image page to indicate that it's been copied to Wikimedia Commons.
Usually a bot would check that it's been copied and then delete the Wikpedia image so that the Commons one is used instead. In this case, while I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons I also uploaded a higher resolution version from the Flickr page. As a result the bot couldn't verify that it's the same image. I've changed the one on Commons to the same bit for bit (identical) version that was on Wikipedia so the bot can recheck it. The net result will be that the image is on Wikimedia Commons instead of Wikipedia (and then I'll upload the higher resolution version) so that all Wikipedia projects can use it.
Ha! (
talk) 20:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Yup, I don't want to totally remove Pika62220's info, until I can decide just how much I want to reveal about myself on this thing! LOL —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pika62221 (
talk •
contribs) 01:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)reply
"Nonconstructive" editing
Okay, so you don't like the way I edit. Maybe I don't like your hair color? Who knows? I'm sure that unreferenced claims about someone who thought something might be true need a bit of editing. This is called "eventualism," and it's what Wikipedia does. I'm just trying to attract attention to things that are shyte.
98.215.82.114 (
talk) —Preceding
comment was added at 02:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I didn't refer to your IP's
vandalism of
Anal-oral_sex (diff
[18]} as "nonconstructive", I called it "disruptive editing".
Gary King referred to your IP's editing as "nonconstructive", when he gave it the 2nd warning for vandalism
[19], after
Elkman had given it the first. I don't like or dislike the way you edit (which isn't
eventualism from what I can see) and my hair colour is really beautiful, you'd love it.
Ha! (
talk) 03:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Hi. Sorry I wasn't around at the time. Looks like the problem was fixed though.
Ha! (
talk) 14:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned non-free media (Image:CNSA Logo.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:CNSA Logo.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, it is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.
BJBot (
talk) 05:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Adoption further readings
Hello. I received your comment to me: "Your input may be useful at Talk:Adoption#Further_Reading_Section. Ha! (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)". I'd be glad to help out. Bests. --- (Bob)
Wikiklrsc (
talk) 15:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I wrote some comments into the talk page for
Adoption about "further reading". Also, thanks for your kind words. It's been a lot of writing for me for Wikipedia in these last years as you observed. I try to pick my entries carefully. Bests. --- (Bob)
Wikiklrsc (
talk) 20:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The article has now been protected and hopefully a mediation cabal should be getting involved in the frequent debate over what
Christian Bale should be listed as in the lead line. Please air your views on the talk page. Thanks
White43 (
talk) 11:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I've already aired them, thanks. Apart from a couple of unrelated removals I've not edited the article so I'm not too fussed about it's protection level. You might find a
WP:RfC more useful than mediation (you would need to summarise the discussion first though or it'll be too complicated to read and no one will comment) as the discussion would probably be helped more with broader opinions rather than a negotiation of the current ones. If you prefer to stick with mediation though, it might be worth leaving your initial tag as it was (i.e. stick with your first version of this
[20]), otherwise you're excluding a substantial amount of relevant discussion.
Ha! (
talk) 14:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)reply
Those links you provided are particularly useful, I think
User:Promethean should take a good long read of them, because he appears to be ignoring all the advice. BTW - I only asked for semi-protection - but it appears to have been deemed that a higher protection level be placed.
White43 (
talk) 13:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)reply
If you wish to score points against another editor don't use me as a proxy to do so; either make your points on
their talk page or pursue your WP:Wikiquette approach
[21]. As mentioned, I don't edit the page so I'm not interested in it's protection level. You're trying to fight a battle and win rather than illuminate a problem and find the solution.
Ha! (
talk) 14:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)reply
I was just thanking you for the links. That's all.
White43 (
talk) 10:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)reply
The consensus on that article seems to be to keep it, although I think a meal is being made of the research; on close inspection it really amounts to just one study on the subject, one study on a different subject and a couple of minor references to it. Spraying the article with multiple references and further reading (some of which is literally just that one study presented at a different venue) to make it appear more notable than it is and then berating people that have a differing opinion seems to me to be an odd manner of investigation. On a side note, I think the Broncolor article references and it's notability could do with being looked at.
Ha! (
talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Thank you.
Ha! (
talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)reply
thanks
thanks for working on the 'paid content' issue. i saw your page linked off a slashdot comment and it really 'woke me up'. i had seen that stuff on elance before, but never 'put it together' in my mind how big a threat it could be, or that there was anything that could be done about it.
Thanks. It did occur to me that it wouldn't be too hard to find more examples like this. It'd be interesting to do a serious and thorough investigation of just how much paid editing is actually going on and, more importantly, what it's results are.
Ha! (
talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)reply
LinkSearch
Re your additions to
User:Ha!/paid editing adverts which I thanked you for above: Do you know about
linksearch? It is very fast and seems to be an exhaustive list of all external links containing the site (whereas a Google search only shows articles where the text of the URL appears). Problem: it is case sensitive. For example, here is a search for
noclaimsdiscount.co.uk.
I don't think it's helpful here, but at
WT:WikiProject Spam one would report spam with *{{LinkSummary|noclaimsdiscount.co.uk}} which renders as:
Thanks for the info about the links. It would have saved time as it instantly shows the 30 links that were commisioned. I think GoodTherapy.org was created by
User:Vpopescu. His talk page is one of the
Special:WhatLinksHere/GoodTherapy.org results because it has a bot-placed speedy deletion warning template on it for that article; the bot would only do that if he created it.
Ha! (
talk) 14:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Barnstar
The Anti-Spam Barnstar
For your efforts in identifying paid-for spam and promotional articles on Wikipedia.
Laurent (
talk) 18:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Thank you.
Ha! (
talk) 14:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Good move
I like what you did re:Durova/Giano. I thought Off2riorob's striking was inappropriate, but I feel your complete redaction is quite well-done. Regards,
Unitanode 01:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at
WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:
Could you have another look at the deletion of
Experimental pop music /
Avant-pop please. As mentioned by one of the AfD's contributors on the nominator's talkpage
[22], it isn't related to and doesn't really belong in an
Afd for Power folk. Also, unlike Power Folk it was a substantial article that described it's subject in some detail and it could easily have been reliably sourced.
Ha! (
talk) 10:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question is answered in my
FAQs. They're linked at the top of my talk page and in the editnotice. Why not check them out next time?
The nomination did make it clear that the discussion related to all three articles, and people didn't break out separate opinions for some of the articles, so I'm happy with this closure.
Stifle (
talk) 10:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Hello, Brumski. You have new messages at
Stifle's talk page. You can
remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank you
Thank you for pointing that out at
Talk:Alford guilty plea to
Redheylin (
talk·contribs). Curious as to how you came by that talk page? Also, I responded to your comment, at the talk page. Cheers, Cirt (
talk) 04:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I made a post with a compromise suggestion, at the talk page. Cirt (
talk) 05:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I have responded to you at
Talk:Alford plea. I am very concerned by the edits that have taken place. Please see my request at [
[23]] and note that tags have been removed by user at the Alford plea page and at
North Carolina v. Alford claiming "article improved", whereas no changes have been made. I note your involvement stems from legal wikiwork and welcome it. Thanks.
Redheylin (
talk) 13:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Redheylin is now engaging in disruption with the re-adding of these tags despite failing to make his case and failing to present any sources to back up his argument. Cirt (
talk) 13:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
The matter is the subject of an ANI report, to which your input would be appreciated.
[24]Redheylin (
talk) 13:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Brumski, I responded to your points, at
Talk:Alford plea. I also made the matter a bit clearer, by breaking up a sentence in the article and moving cites to separate sentences. Cirt (
talk) 14:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Do you think the tag
added by
Redheylin (
talk·contribs) to this article and to the Supreme Court case article could be removed? I have taken both articles from an unsourced state to a state of currently having every-single-sentence in both articles cited to
WP:RS sources. I do not think saying they "contradict" is appropriate, as one is about a case which is static, and the other is about a form of
guilty plea the usage of which evolves separate from the conclusion of the case it was initially derived from. Cirt (
talk) 17:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
I am so sorry to trouble you again, but even after the issue is resolved and the quality of the article was improved,
Redheylin (
talk·contribs) feels the need to inappropriately use the talk page at
Talk:Alford plea -
as his own personal forum to make unsupported claims and attacks. Perhaps you could give some input there as to whether that line of inquiry is appropriate? Cirt (
talk) 02:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)reply
As you say, that talk page is for improving the article rather than having an argument about other stuff and so I don't think it's a good idea for me to comment there further. My input was limited to what light the evidence (sources, diffs, the article etc.) shed on two particular issues: A) what the article name should be and B) whether the phrase "defendant admits that sufficient evidence exists" was appropriate to use at the time or whether it was an attempt to falsify the sources/was bogus/original research etc. A) is obviously settled and my interpretation of B) is still exactly the same as it was before
[25] because the response to it
[26] is incorrect: you were notified of the ANI thread at
01:25, 29 November 2009 and at that time
the article contained the same six sources that I mentioned in the previous comment
[27] and so your article text was a direct reflection of the sources. Those two particular issues are the limit of my opinion though, I'm not getting sucked into a wider argument as I don't think they're helpful. My advice is to walk away from the dipsute for a week - there's not much that can be gained from escalation and a lot that can be gained from calming things down.
Brumski (
talk) 04:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial
The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at
Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays!
JCbot (
talk) 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Eh, it's not like I made the definition up, I just don't have access to the original reference. I'm not too bothered that other references have since come along to verify the meaning. --
Kendrick7talk 11:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Orphaned non-free image File:Threethenfour.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Threethenfour.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a
claim of fair use. However, the image is currently
orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see
our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a
bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{
helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click
here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off
here and leave a message on
my owner's talk page.
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)reply