User talk:Leaky caldron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I have just changed back the EDL change I made and put a link on with a picture that proves it thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.229.229 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] rollback

Following your request, I've granted you rollback. Please be aware the rollback should only be used to revert vandalism (or sometimes, your own edits).

If you revert edits with rollback, other editors may begin looking at your contribution history more often, so please carefully review the following two policies, which will help you skirt making any blatant mistakes:

Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Channel 4 sources

Please can you not use Channel 4 sources unless absolutely necessary? Such sources are archived each Christmas, meaning that it takes twice the amount of work six-three months down the line. Thanks, Dale 18:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

Done. Dale 18:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Big Brother 2009 (UK), you will be blocked from editing. Dale 23:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaky, TV shows are sources for themselves. Read up on the TV policies. –túrianpatois 23:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not a "threat" at all, that is a standard user template for such edits. Dale 23:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I have already pointed out that there is no consensus to use the cite episode template. The idea of the summary in BB10 is to avoid unnecessary detail being put into the article itself. Can you please explain how citing an episode of a programme (as it happens incorrectly in this case which actually sums up my point very readily) enable a reader to see the underlying detail behind the summary? This is not commonsense at all, it is nonsense. There may be a place for refering to episodes, but not is a summary that might cover more than 1 day and needs the associated linked content to complete the story. What is it I am failing to understand?

The 3RR policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#The_Three_revert_rule cannot apply so you are threatening to use something to deter me correcting your error and changing your disputed template. That is unreasonable behaviour. leaky_caldron (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you feel I've been unreasonable, please go ahead and report me. I feel I've done nothing wrong, but lets let the admins decide. Dale 23:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No need. Just don't aim bits of policy at me that won't stick. I have asked you a number of times to discuss this on the article's talk page and I'm still willing to do so but the article should be accurate (your ref. is wrong) and should be returned to the status quo. That's all I'm doing. You are removing my correct content - not the other way around. leaky_caldron (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You claim that the Day number is wrong, I suggested you change it and you won't. You just want an argument. Good night. Dale 23:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
How can I possibly change the day when I fundementally disagree with the template. That would be silly. If you are agreeable we can take it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion. All I wish is for the questions on the talk page about the cite episode template and consensus to be answered. leaky_caldron (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] September 2009

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Big Brother 2009 (UK). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. –túrianpatois 01:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As you very well know, I have made every effort to resolve this. It is not me who is attempting to insert incorrect details and using a template for which their is no consensus. I am perfectly happy for actions to be examined by anyone, but you have no evidence to justify and claim to disruption. I am aware of the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=311573807#Is_Big_Brother_Network_a_reliable_source_for_events_on_the_Big_Brother_reality_TV_show.3F and it clearly demonstrates that the issue of verifiabilty and use of programme material is under consideration. The return to my original edit using non-disputed sources is entirely correct. Tell me how it is not and I will reconsider, but going on about distruption when my content is the only accurate & verified source available seems on add way to do business. I am trying to assume good faith but I am unsure why you refuse to answer my questions. leaky_caldron (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
They are not incorrect details. And there was a pretty basic consensus. If more users disagree, I will gladly keep it. But your edit summary had nothing to do with what you edited (and yet, you still did it, violating the 3RR). –túrianpatois 01:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. There is no consensus for the cite episode template. The article is wrong - the events described covered 2 days. I fail to understand how you can defend the clearly indefensible and not contribute to it's resolution on the talk page. leaky_caldron (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already told you it is common sense. And fix it yourself. Stop griping and just fix the misinformation. –túrianpatois 01:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations totals debate

As a regular editor to Big Brother 2009 (UK), I am writing to inform you about this discussion on the aforementioned issue. Dale 20:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ANI ?

Damn, I hope that if I ever get convinced to do RfA again that someone asks me that question - it is the whole reason that my question came into play. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom comments

I don't know how familiar you are with ArbCom case requests, but when you leave replies to other peoples statements, please leave them in your section, not theirs. If you have any questions, come by my talk page. Thanks, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Please edit only your own section on the arbitration requests page. It helps the committee to review the matter with minimal clutter. I, or another clerk, will, in future, remove any further threaded discussions without prejudice. Many thanks, AGK 23:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. It's no longer relevant anyway, AFAIC, since Jenna resigned her adminship. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Admin recall

re your question on recent RfAs, you may be interested in User:LessHeard vanU/Dead minimum, which may end up as something worth having.  pablohablo. 17:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

many thanks Pablo. Leaky Caldron 23:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Well done

Hey, good move, like it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Interwiki links

My apologies if it came across as such. It wasn't written with that intent.--Crossmr (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Northeast boxers

Hi LC, I have come for two reasons. A. to see if you want to get more involved in the Boxing Project. It's been pretty quiet over there and could do with a NE specialist. B. To see if you could improve the Tony Jeffries articles. I think he is going to be the next biggest thing in British boxing and it would be good if we had a decent articl on him. I was hoping you could make it your pet articles and improve it now and then? cheers!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should bring up Glenn McCrory & Billy Hardy, both got a good airing on Sky Sports last night.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd say they will base themselves there - McCory has good high level contacts with the Cubans.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks, it's always good to have one's boldness noticed and appreciated. I have little tolerance for the politicking and bullshit that has built up over the years around the adminship process. As Bishzilla commented on my 3rd and successful RFB, "Little Andre good answers to questions, not so much foot-shuffling." My intent is to live up to that confidence and minimize the kind of safe and inoffensive political hand-wringing which gets little done but avoids offending too many special interests. Of course this probably means I'll never be elected to ArbCom due to making too many enemies in trying to delete non-notable articles, for example, or calling it as I see it; then again, ArbCom is a black hole into which time disappears and little emerges, and I've always tried to stay away from it, seeing how it burns out previously productive editors. Anyway, thanks for your comment, sorry for rambling on your talk page. Andre (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] October 2009

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on English Defence League. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. The IP edit didn't look like vandalism to me. See WP:NOTVAND Verbal chat 20:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

See my messages on the article talk page, however, it is probably best to let other users handle these sorts of reversions; technically they are not exempted from 3RR. In general I would avoid at all costs letting yourself be roped into an edit war and get your clean block log sullied. Limiting yourself to one revert a day will improve your reputation and the cost of the article being in a less favorable state for a couple days is minimal. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hooray fun!

Thanks for your work, too. Regardless of any policies I disagree with, it looks like there was some bias which was probably unintentional to some extent. The more neutral it is the less knee-jerk reverting by IPs and validity for the project. Blah... sorry to sound so preachy.Cptnono (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That is priceless. There is a dispute as to if neutrality is disputed.Cptnono (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
That is funny that you mention that. I went AfK for a beer and started thinking about how to somehow include that exact line. It is already used in a source next to another inline citation describing the "press conference". Both reports came across incredibly biased (too much Wikipedia) but the Newsnight piece summarized what i feel is important. We don't know the direction the organization will take. They grew fast and it is to be determined what the future will hold.Cptnono (talk)
The coverage is good enough. We cite episode for the televised piece. The article already has lower tier sources in an effort to counter punch here in places. This source with such analysis would be a great addition to the article. It has turned into winning and editing without any consideration for NPOV for some. That can't last long and worse comes to worse is easy enough to seek action on.Cptnono (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Not all sources need to be available online. [1] surprisingly works as a link in the Sates, though. I don't know if this will be going down or not but I doubt we will run into any verifiability concerns. It also has a partial transcript. It would be gaming the system to not allow the information. Cptnono (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice work. You actually removed a POV concern (the minor However). It still reads like a counter punch on that line but just a little change like that can make a difference on which if one "alternative is less favored than another".Cptnono (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It is so blatant it is sickening. I was working on a really contentious article and it lasted for months and months. I would rather get this sorted out now. I also wouldn't mind seeing it improved. To help square it away and to double check to see if I am wrong, I am nominating the article to be checked for neutrality.
Noticed Geordie on your user page. Oddly enough, I have been following Newcastle since '02.Cptnono (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Sunderland? And I had such a high regard for you! The division is weak this season so SF could get to the playoffs easily. Great town, too. Have a great evening!Cptnono (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk, thanks. I'd not seen that diff before. Verbal chat 15:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the results didn't go your way. I thought they were going to equalize at the end there. I'm actually off to the stadium for a handful or two of beers now. I wanted to mention that I do disagree with the amount of quotes and the general layout of the lead but I do applaud your efforts in aiming for neutrality and some bold edits.Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw that! Yep. We have a playoff system for the championship and if they win and some results go our way there will be home field advantage throughout the playoffs.
I am upset with myself actually. I made a few edits and got discouraged by the reverts. I'll see what I can do to actually contribute to the content. Cptnono (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it was. I was able to catch every NUFC match on one of two channels before they got relegated. Now I have season tickets to the Sounders so it make it a little better. I can't believe the edit war on the tag kept up while I was away. Cptnono (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't not and live here! I don't catch as many games at the stadium due to the price and having to deal last minute buys (all games are sold out so its online sellers or scalpers). A couple bad trades and our staring QB being banged up has killed their record the last couple of seasons but I don't see it changing. Same division as the 49ers.
I just laid out a long list of my POV concerns. Hopefully this will lead to corrections and not debate on what they are or are not.Cptnono (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Early enough and our division sucks.
The general tone of the article is what is getting me. All those things add up. I really just it to say "they say this, opponents say this, analysts say this" but that is easier said then done!Cptnono (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. August spokesperson said 300 and October (apparently the other guy was no good but I don't recall the source) one said 3,700. Please tinker with it. I added a couple of lines on origin since I like that sort of info.Cptnono (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
They have actually been in town and in Portland. I almost went to the game in Seattle a couple of years ago.
The source is the one saying 3700 (Telegraph or Guardian?). BRB Feel free to adjust the wording. The same article was also copied on a BBC website but we already had the other source. The far-right thing to me is a a big issue because as a group it is denied and having that label looks like we are ignoring that. I'm totally OK with saying elements withing the organization are racist and fascist idolizing thugs but as a group they are adamant that that is not what they want as a whole. Making that clear in the lead (both what they say, what is alleged, what individuals are) should be a priority and can be done in two lines. Since adding that much detail might be a flash point I thought the easiest first fix was to copy the wording used in the prose. This would also prevent an ongoing concern from random IPs dropping in.Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see Z... (sorry for the English variation mistake. The source is [2] It is already used int he paragraph so I will move it over.Cptnono (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
They still argue against it. You have also shown with the quote that it is a complicated fusion. "The English Defence League is an organization formed in 2009, whose stated aim is opposition to the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England. Membership is comprised of various social groups including football hooligans and far-right elements. The EDL organizes public demonstrations in English cities."
You think? I would liek to present it but let me know if anything looks like a POV concern or one that would cause friction.
The kid wasn't in the source? I had a dozen sites open at one so got confused let me find it. I assumed it wasn't important until seeing how much it randomly popped up.Cptnono (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC) AHA: [3].Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo! It is a two legs and home was 0-0 so I was bummed. I somehow ended up doing karaoke at some underground bar with a bunch of Cambodian gangbangers afterwards so it ended up being a good (if not weird) night!Cptnono (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of games left, of course, but your guys are staying in the hunt for Europe. Cptnono (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I was spending too much money every week anyways! Read a great article the other day on how your luck might have been all used up with the beach ball incident. Sounds like your guys are playing well but can't find the back of the net.Cptnono (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Sorry, I am ...it is getting late and the editing style is getting to me . Thanks for correcting my edit. Off2riorob (talk)

lol np ;) Leaky Caldron 22:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] EDL: is there one?)

Hi, can you elaborate on the article talk page the reason for this edit, I don't understand it. Thanks Verbal chat

[edit] Newsnight

I have a copy of the program now. I'll look up a timestamp - you want the studio discussion after the report? Verbal chat 13:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] just a note

Nice set of edits recently by the way on EDL. I know we have had disagreements but ... (Oh and Liverpool beat Man United so in an all round good mood --Snowded TALK 17:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Re your message on my talk page - the problem I have is simply with grammar, and readability. It reads badly to cram too many thoughts into the first sentence, just because some people think "the first sentence" is particularly important. I'll have another look at it, probably later today - otherwise occupied at the moment. I'll keep monitoring the NPOV issue as well, but will try and keep away from unproductive discussions (not your fault, I think). Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Leaky caldron. You have new messages at Unschool's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

[edit] EDL Edit summaries

Hi, this isn't a complaint, but please be more careful with your edit summaries. A recent summary said you were restoring the lead, but you also undid multiple improvements to the body. Also, please think carefully before defending clearly biased editors who are not supported by policy or consensus. Cptnono's position may be debatable, but other editors are clear POV pushers. Cptnono is the only "good faith" editor (stretching the definition) advancing his unsupported position, occasionally supported by a few well known extremist users and abusive IPs/SPAs. Verbal chat 07:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I believe you where in the wrong

I beg your pardon. Red Italics has always been the way we do things for Strictly and DWTS America not Red Bold. So I think that we should keep it that way. Red Bold is ugly and doesnt seem right! Kiwi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwi Jaden (talk • contribs) 04:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Marlon King

It's a fair point. I've justified what I did (which admittedly I should have done first) and declared that I'm going to wait before persisting in reverting, as the content is sourced. However, I do feel that I was right to revert. That section was better written as of Toon05's last revision than it was in Trident's first revision. There was nothing to stop Trident working his subsequent bullets into the prose. And while I understand what you're saying about me turning the list into prose, I don't feel that having seen a reasonably-written section turned into a list of arguably over-specific information that I would be best placed to copyedit it- I would be tempted to remove "unnecessary" parts of it, and the work would most likely be reverted. WFCforLife (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was getting a bit stressed, thought I'd do something constructive. WFCforLife (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
From what I've been told we weren't actually that bad, which I find hard to believe. Still, we're doing better than I expected considering we sold our top two scorers, our best defender and our only other winger. Could be worse, could be Luton :) WFCforLife (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] UAF

You have cherry-picked information from the the UAF website to present them as a leftist organization although they clearly state "We aim to unite the broadest possible spectrum of society to counter this threat." That is original research. You recently posted at RSN asking whether the website was RS. As I mentioned there you should use mainstream press as a source. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Labour and SWP parties are mentioned, mentioning the Conservative Party and Ulster Unionist Party makes if more clear that their membership is broadly based. The Labour and Conservative Parties are btw the two major political parties in the UK so it is unbalanced to mention only one. I would point out that where sections are poorly sourced, you should find better sources. Your new version as I said is poorly sourced and distorts the views presented in the source. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Note

[4] - I have been known as the "Wiki Satan" since August 2008. I thought that might interest you. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I laughed when I read that. I've heard myself described like that before. By the way, I chose User:Coriolanus as my open access title because of the way people declare I am. I thought that was rather amusing. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Leaky, I thought your caesarean section came across very well, too. You might not gain further ground in an encore, so perhaps exeunt omnes is the best approach for the time being, if you see what I mean...:-) - Pointillist (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Summit Tunnel Fire

Hi,

A few months ago a number of photographs were remove from the Summit Tunnel fire article due to valid copyright reasons. I now have the publishers written authority to use these and I believe it will enhance the article. Can you give me advice on the best way to restore these?

Regards, Leaky Caldron 10:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Send the consent, including the exact names of all the affected images, to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thanks. will do. Leaky Caldron 14:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. I did as you suggested and sent an email a couple of days ago. What happens next? Leaky Caldron 17:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
All the emails are queued and answered in the order received. There's a backlog of over 2 weeks at the moment, though... Stifle (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fort Hood shooting

First of all, I find nothing on the article talk page where the odd formatting was first proposed, widely discussed and agreed on before it was used. What I find is discussion after the fact and comments that it is an odd reference style, but again, no consensus to keep it. I do not see that particular style recommended in Wikipedia citation guidelines or policies. I do not see an imbedded note on the article page indicating that a new style of referencing is being used, or that editors agreed on it. So when someone comes into the article and discovers a reference link is dead, and finds something entirely odd and slightly insane in appearance, it is not unheard of for it to be changed. I'd be entirely grateful if someone would point out the Wikipedia reference guidelines or policies that suggest that this odd style is now accepted for referencing. Frankly, I don't care if it ruffles someone's feathers, why would anyone try to institute a format of referencing that isn't used here and do so without notating it somewhere in the article, especially since no one had a problem with imbedding notes not to use photographs not related to the shooting or that this isn't technically a massacre. It seems to me that a mention of the reference style being used from another version from Wikimedia but not this one might come to mind to someone. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup, it's a discussion, after the fact, and about 2 1/4 hours after the article was created. As I said, I find nothing on the article talk page where the odd formatting was first proposed, widely discussed and agreed on before it was used. And I'm not aware that before editing a page, editors need to go searching out the talk page to see if someone is trying out something new and not in the recommended styles of citation. I'm still not seeing a guideline or policy that suggests, recommends, even notes this odd style of referencing, nor any indication of support on Wikipedia for instituting the use of it. I notice you skipped right over every point I made, and that's fine, but don't come and lecture me and insinuate that I made a mistake. The mistake was in implementing an irregular style of reference formatting without so much as a courtesy imbedded note explaining it for the other 200 or so editors on the page besides the 8 that were aware of and responded to the talk page discussion. I wonder how many of them were aware someone was trying out a new method of citation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Rich Farmbrough, 01:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

Yes the refs are a mess now, well that's the nature of a wiki. Rich Farmbrough, 01:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Response

No, there is no requirement to leave an embedded note for everything, but much in the same way that unusual or problematic situations that exist in an article have such notes (unrelated images, my note on avoiding the use of Yahoo! News since the links rot in a day or two), using a reference format style that is not currently in use on Wikipedia at least would merit a note to inform editors of such. While the named references are included in WP:FN, the style examples, such as the one you noted here do not use a style that includes the primary reference in a separate reference section, apart from the main body of the article. The named references all include the primary reference once in the article body, no examples are included that do not use the primary reference in the article body. WP:FN#Listing footnotes at the end of the article: using <references /> or {{Reflist}} explicitly states that references will be auto-generated and includes the image File:WP-Footnotes_illustration.jpg that clearly states that. Of the 200-250 editors who have made edits to the page, the majority of them are not experienced editors and going to the style guideline does nothing to explain what is going on with the referencing on that page. I'm truly not sure what GA and FA reviewers would make of this. What I do know is that there was not one consistent style of citations when I went to the page, and there is not now. People have enough trouble with the simple method, I can't imagine the confusion when there are no instructions on this new, unapproved method. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI there is scads of discussion here. Probably more elsewhere. Rich Farmbrough, 10:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Scotland

Hi there

I removed it because it was out of place and not sufficiently significant to be in the lead. You will note that it follows a sentence describing the geography of Scotland. Anyway, where did you get the phrase 'elective region' from? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Boxers nicknames again

You were recently involved in a discussion with regards boxers nicknames. There is a continuation of that discussion with specific reference to Audley Harrison on the BLP page here. Please feel free to add your opinion there once more. Regards. Vintagekits (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mandy

Cool, I support your edits there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Me neither, I like an article to be quality and informative in a neutral way, what makes me angry is when someone comes to an article to attack the subject because they don't like them..that is so not the point of what wikipedia is, anyway, I'll restrict my rant, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
There are indeed, barstards! Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I was watchin with respect, very bold and much improved. Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that, about 15 edits and only a couple of hundred bytes diff, I was looking a bit more and it is really very readable now, real good work. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Scotland and NI, I have never edited there but I can imagine, articles that are intense as those will never be any good, I think we met on that EDL article, those locations are like training grounds, and then you look around and find an article and it is easy to work on, enjoyable, and whereas any work you do on those hotly contested articles will last about a day, good easy work that lasts is much more rewarding, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland

Hello, Leaky. I appreciate your words on the Scotland talk page and certainly agree that working together is always a better way of going about things. As for the suggested opening line, I do think it reads well and have voted accordingly. I'm not sure though that I feel strongly enough about it to get involved in the discussion to any great degree, perhaps not at all. It wouldn't bother me too much if the present lede remained. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom

Since you have contributed to List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom, this is to inform you of a discussion which I have started at Talk:List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom#Criteria for inclusion. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] James Crosby (banker)

I have reported User:Goldfinger 93 to WP:AIV. – ukexpat (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

...and blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] disgrace

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Well done for keeping the NPOV flag flying: I admire your stamina! Pointillist (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HI again (Summit Tunnel Fire images)

Following your advice (now in your November archive) I waited a while then received this ticket number in an email from permissions@wikimedia.org: Ticket#2009110510056939. Their email simply said thank you for my email. What happens next in relation to getting these permitted images approved for use? Does the ticket number signify something, if so where can I track it? Regards, Leaky Caldron 12:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried reading down to the bottom of the email? Stifle (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Murray

Leaky I have spent 10 years researching Sunderland and have now interviewed all the former directors and had access to the press archives and diaries -The material I think is factually correct and mostly sourced from 2 diaries and notes. I have more post 2005. If its 2 heavy on Sunderland match facts I can edit out but I did think its interesting and I have the agreement of all concerned to publish on wiki bobhannah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobhannah (talk • contribs) 23:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Leaky thanks for the advice the material I have is really important I believe - How do I include citations say from interviews with directors who were there at the time also access to diaries. Agree with you about the match facts -If I missed something you sent me then sorry need some Geordie advice for the Mackems Bobhannah (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Are the diaries and your interviews published anywhere? All content added to articles—especially articles on living persons—must be verifiable. This means that a reader of the article must be able to verify the content themselves, which in turn means they must be able to look at the sources themselves. This does not mean it has to be available online. Pretty much anything you can find in a library is accessible to the public and thus verifiable. But unpublished private diaries, and interviews are not verifiable content. Our readers can't call you up to verify the content, so if the content you wish to add is just in yours and others' memory, your private notes, unpublished diaries and the like, that can't be accessed to verify and is thus incompetent material as a source.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please continue at the article talk page here, Talk:Bob_Murray#Proposed_new_content thanks. Leaky Caldron 17:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Happy Holidays

Roodborstje.jpg

Ret.Prof (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

[edit] Football team flag icons

That's great and all but check out his contributions, he took out the flags on every single football team and national team page. It must have taken hours. Also, it annoys me that he apparently did all of this without consulting the football WikiProject, just decided on his own to remove EVERY SINGLE FLAG. Ugh. Eightball (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, look at the discussion at the top of the wikiproject page, they want to take flags out of roster lists. These people are insane. Eightball (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Strictly averages table

I've just read up on Wikipedia's 'no original research' policy and can see where you're coming from about calculations being in breach of this. I have a few thoughts though:

  • i) It's not quite unsourced: 'Darceys points' are from the show and still on BBC iPlayer so (at the moment at least) they are verifiable.
  • ii) I was trying to make the pages consistent since there's an averages chart on each Strictly series page. I would have thought the point of the averages tables was to compare between series or the order the contestants leave the show which you can't do with some scores out of 50.
  • iii) If you're going to take the 'no original research' policy by the book then surely we should delete all the averages tables on all Strictly series pages since the show never makes any reference to them.

Just thoughts, would be interested in your comments. Kvg20 (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please continue at the article's talk page. Leaky Caldron 20:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


[edit] ref

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/archive/E-ON-Great-Saves-No-2-Jim-Montgomery-article271605.html


[edit] European winter storms of 2009-10

Thanks for your input. Would you be willing to help weed out some of this dross... It is badly needed. Cf. User_talk:RaseaC#European_winter_storms_of_2009. Orthorhombic (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in. I have only done down to 23rd Dec. so far. Orthorhombic (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


[edit] Archive web pages

Hi, I thought it was down already, there is a way to do it, but I am unsure, ask at the Wikipedia:Help_desk , You could copy the pages yourself and save them as it doesn't matter if the pages no longer exist only as long as they once did, the archive wayback machine will have some history of them though, sorry that is all I know. Off2riorob (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] re: Polie Advice

Thanks for your comments, but I dont have a static IP so each time I connect to the internet my ISP assigns an IP. I am NOT using multiple accounts. Secondly, I was not aware how to insert references to sources in my original entries. Now that you have told me how, I have edited the texts which I added WITH VALID SOURCES and taken on board the other advice suggested about neutrality. regards. --92.40.202.47 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.202.47 (talk)

I havent pretended to be 2 people. In my comments on the subjects discussion page, its clear i am the same person and I have referred to my earlier edits (which my ISP gave a different IP to) so its clear to anyone its the same person. Iwill register an account when i get round to it. --92.40.202.47 (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC) --92.40.202.47 (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced BLPs

Information.svg Hello Leaky caldron! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 478 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Ross Burden - Find sources: "Ross Burden" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
  • ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Guidance for younger editors

Not "cool" quite yet, but it's getting there I believe! Take a look and let me know what you think. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


[edit] Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Leaky caldron,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

  • Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
  • In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
  • Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


[edit] The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for this [5] s/he was half right, no man will touch me and I do a lot of vandal fighting. Not sure where the vagina comment came from, s/he should probably use rather than vandalise WP and maybe then they'd learn that guys don't have vaginas! raseaCtalk to me 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


[edit] Winter 2009-2010

Well I guess Winter 2009-10 actually ended on 21 March (the spring equinox) so that information just misses the boat. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's not notable at the moment, but if it continues for several days it might be worth a paragraph or two. I was a bit dubious about it when someone added the information yesterday but decided to reference it anyway. I think I'll post it on the talk page just in case we need it again and so it's easier to locate. Cheers. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
NP. Leaky Caldron 12:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Just removed another March 31 section TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


[edit] Hi LC

Hi, I saw your revert at Alan Johnson, sometimes I dispair, editors should be integrated better, I support no IP editing and new editors making declarations of intent as to their interests and in what way they wish to help improve the content, I would like to see this kind of Wikipedia editor declaration of intent taken up by users voluntarily, just a rant, best regards,. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Too much

I've removed all the drug policy stuff, until we can reach a consensus on it. Hope that helps <anon> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.149.126 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother 2009 (UK) GA nomination

I've noticed that you are one of the top contributors to Big Brother 2009 (UK). I am sending this message to inform you that the article is now nominated for Good Article status. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'd be interested to hear what you think of recent changes to this article. I've opened a discussion on its talk page. —MegaPedant 21:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


[edit] UTC+1

First of all, I have to disagree with you regarding the attractiveness and usefullness of the new timezone format; I find it to be particularly useful for tournaments held in larger countries where there might be multiple time zones in use, each with abbreviations that may not be immediately identifiable. And while this may not be the case with the articles that have been edited thus far, I'm simply starting at a beginning to hopefully create a standardized style.

On to the answer to your question, though, there has not been consensus on this edit, or how you put it "agreement for this being promulgated". However, I think you've made an unwitting error regarding how consensus is reached, and for that, I'll direct you to this policy and this essay.

I have made an edit in several articles regarding timezones in football match results that I believe adds value and useful information to those articles, as well as increasing their accessibility. If you still disagree with it, I would like to hear your reasons for such, other than a simple knee-jerk reaction about aesthetics. And if after some more discussion we cannot come to a consensus ourselves here, I think that this WikiProject would be a valid forum in which to raise this issue so that a broader consensus could be reached.

I look forward to your thoughts in the future, and I am sure that we can come to a consensus on this virginal issue. cassius1213 14:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture. I'm removing it from 1966 World Cup because I disagee with it and there is no consensus. Leaky Caldron 14:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my comments as a lecture; they certainly weren't intended to be taken as such. However, I believe that you've missed the point of those comments. There is no consensus on this matter; there is only silence and silence does not imply consensus. I have made an edit that I believe adds value to the articles in question. Moreover, this edit brings the articles in question into alignment with the exemplar use of the template in question. You have thus far reverted one of those edits because "[you] disagree with it". However, I still believe that we can come to a consensus on this matter if we can open a dialogue. Additionally, I continue to be interested in what your reasons for reverting are (of course, other than those of personal aesthetics and disagreement; those have been made clear). Finally and again, I hope that I will hear your thoughtful and reasoned comments soon. cassius1213 14:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You made an excellent point that I had not considered and I thank you for that. I am going to consider my position for a while longer, but until I get back to you on this, feel free to revert my other such edits. cassius1213 16:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] EDL and Spinwatch

Four Deuces, already checked the source with the notice board, check the big discussion on Robert Spencer. The results of the noticeboard discussion are here.

P.S. The user account is here , I leave it to you to decide if I've been sockpuppeting :P.

[edit] Higgins

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Leaky caldron. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

13:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Brown's brother

I think the same article was created last year and afded but I can't really remember. Another has been created and I have nominated it for deletion Andrew_Brown_(media_strategist). Do you know how to check it an article in a similar name has previousely been deleted? perhaps Andrew Brown or something similar? Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC

Well, you could put it back but defined to the correct article, its harmless enough. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was fast, he is the creator of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Brown

[edit] Andrew Brown

Hi, the comment you left ( 09:57, 4 May 2010) on Gordon Brown's page: "remove wikilink to brother who does not have an article" seems a bit strange bearing in mind the above message from Off2riorob to you saying that "ANOTHER" article has been created. Clearly you did know there was an article, can you explain this?James317a (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Balls -- Nazi uniform

Apologies if I'm doing this incorrectly -- I'm relatively new to editing in Wikipedia. I have set out my views on why the Ed Balls Nazi uniform photo is important on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotty Lizard (talk • contribs) 13:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] protection

I would also want to ask the question you asked, why is it important to keep a article that is being vandalized repeatedly unprotected? Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

All it would do is disrupt the article, strange indeed. regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
What about Balls, it looks like a simple attack, it has been reported that some group or other from yorkshire is going to attack him, I have made an edit there, ewhat do you think? Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "Portentiously positioned"

No objection to the change to made to the caption, but I thought I'd just point out that portentiously is an accepted variant to portentously, if that's what you meant in your edit summary. I was trying to convey the fact that the sign had been rather ominously placed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Hey, I've sent you an email - no urgency, just check it when you've got a minute. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother 2009 (UK)

As you are one of the top contributors of this article, I thought you ought to know that it has reached Good Article status. Congratulations on your efforts, no matter how big, small, minor or major they were! KingOfTheMedia (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother Contestants

Hi, Leaky, The reference on Ben's section, namely reference 1, starts with "Tory boy" - his political affiliation is therefore confirmed. SE7Talk/Contribs 23:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] note

(dispute fully resolved) Thanks, Tommy2010 [message] 20:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Thank spam!

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Leaky caldron. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I suspect you and I mostly agree on WP:CIVIL, but differ on the willingness to use WP:BLOCK. That's more to do with my lack of courage, than anything else ;-) Anyway, I appreciate your comments at my RfA. I've made certain commitments in my "thankspam", particularly with respect to civility, but I'm still wimping out on tackling incivility in other editors - sorry! TFOWR 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I hope you didn't think I was annoyed in my last post. This is just to let you know I have extended my apologies to the editor in question. Verbal chat

[edit] New messages at...

[edit] The Signpost: 3 October 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For sterling work on the BB project Carl Sixsmith (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose removal

Per your request I've done this [6]. If that was incorrect please feel free to revert as (unlike some other editors) I will not refactor RFA comments off my own back. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat 

[edit] The Signpost: 10 October 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

I have opened a request for dispute resolution.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Big_Brother_2011_.28UK.29.2C_List_of_Big_Brother_2011_housemates_.28UK.29

Regards


Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] A beer for you

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 17 October 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Big Brother 2011 reverts, warning

Nuvola apps important.svg You have removed a number of updates and citations from the Big Brother UK 2011 and Housemates articles. You have removed relevant detail and references without consulting on the talk page. This pattern of deletions is unacceptable. Deleting reliable sources is disruptive to the pattern of this article, stop now.109.151.62.74 (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

Did I miss something? 28bytes (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion discussion

You may be interested in the following discussion relating to the deletion of redirect pages for Big Brother Carl Sixsmith (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] A sagely warning!

Nuvola apps important.svg Stop placing hostile and unfounded comments on my talk page. Your allegations about IP addresses are false and unfounded, the IP addresses are generated randomly. Also, stop your pattern of niggly and unconstructive edits to Big Brother 2011, your pattern of reverting existing material and picking up on every tiny point is borderline ownership and is reoccuring to the detriment of the article. Above all, stop placing messages directed at me, get a senior user to raise any genuine points. I don't want to hear from you any more as you are obviously on an edit war.86.183.170.72 (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Hi, did you intend to delete Nuujinn's comment?[7] It looks like an honest mistake and I was tempted to restore the comment, but I figured I would ask you first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Per your comment at my talk page, I've gone ahead and restored the comment.[8] Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] pointy comments

If going with the second allows us to agree, I will go with the second. I assume you are aware of the handfull of editors who think that all comments posted after SarekofVulcan's close was reverted two days ago, and after Slim Virgin re-announced the RfC but using a different header, should pretty much be discounted. They say the whole process is corrupted. I don't think Blueboar is among them, but other people have been quite vocal about this. I will never accept that position, and will continue to argue against it. This is a serious conflict with serious sstakes, not just for this RfC but for Wikipedia's ability to sustain a community where people assume good faith on the part of their opponents. I thinkk this is a battle worth fighting.

I am concerned that other arguments might just divert attention from this one issue which I find most troubling and dangerous.

Also, there are some issues on which many people may well divide into two very different but equally impassioned positions: should "not truth" stay in the first line or not ... and, do comments after Oct. 29 count or not ... and, is this a straight up/down vote, or is it a request for comments which editors must discuss once the RfC has closed, as they continue to work towards a consensues ... and, do we need a consensus to change the policy or just a majority? To me, these are the serious issues, and again, I am just wary of inflaming any other conflicts. I am concerned it will difuse attention from the major issues into multiple smaller side issues. I am also concerned that it will encourage people to personalize the arguments rather than settle them with policy.

I know that by linking a guideline you were explicitly grounding your comment in policy, and I do not mean to fault that at all. I just do not think it is the real problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Comments

[9] I'm sorry if I came over that I was trying to change your mind (I had hoped I made it clear I was not badgering but obviously not), and I apologise if the "carrot" thing was misleading and a poor metaphor. It was generic commentary on your position not at your position if you see what I mean. Best. Pedro :  Chat  22:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 7 November2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] BB Template

https://www.bigbrotherauditions.com/ notice the logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howabout90 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe change to say 'for the upcoming celebrity series' seeing as that starts in around 6 weeks and the logo will be the same for that.

[edit] the show

I accept it will be notable when it has aired. before that, it's promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw your note. I shall unprotect tomorrow, and look for the best version to undelete. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] TUSC token 0dee82effc40c851843931cd81a27b67

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! 0dee82effc40c851843931cd81a27b67

[edit] TUSC token a4546cb9334fe548eda5215e7b112c82

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

[edit] The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 28 November 2011

[edit] Your reversion of my comments

Hi,

I don't understand why you reverted my comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I have tried repeatedly to redact those comments, as I regretted them and no one had responded, but I was reverted each time and told that it was against the rules to redact, even if no one has responded to the comments. However, I've seen editors remove comments many times. So I asked at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests what the rules were, and was told that redacting was ok, that there weren't rules against it.[10]

Please allow me to redact comments that I regret, that don't add to the postings, and that no one has responded to. I'm just interested in getting the necessary information to do the right thing, and not clutter noticeboards with my posts. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Of course

Of course it's being ignored. As you well know, there are a very, very few things an admin can do to lose the tools. Gross breaches of site security, false identification and doing unto others what you hope they don't do to you. Hipocrite (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 05 December 2011

[edit] BD chatter

If you want to say:

@Tony. It's entirely up to you of course, but my view is that Badger will...

then you're talking to Tony, not BD. Do that on Tony's talk page, not BD's. BD already has quite enough unwelcome comments on his page, and I doubt very much that he welcomes you pontificating William M. Connolley (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Re [11]. Please read my edit notice. And please stop harassing BD William M. Connolley (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V closing comment

Well played, (presumed) sir. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Northumberland

responded on my page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I'm having trouble reconciling the content of [[12]] with the essay I referenced User:Gerardw/Notes on civility, the thesis of which is precisely that Wikipedia isn't consistent. I did consider reverting both the OM attacks -- not to sweep anything away, as we all know how to read page history diffs, but rather give him a passive way out. In other words, I've found sometime an editor won't redact themselves but will let another editor's redaction stand. However I decided the situation was too far gone for a second redaction to be beneficial. At this point, I don't that I can make any positive contribution to the OM discussion and intend to bow out. Gerardw (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Gerard. There is no comparison between BadgerDrink's 9 word edit summary on his own talk page with the long, highly public, humiliating, foul denunciation of editors on AN/I (quickly followed by a repeat performance a few minutes later). Leaky Caldron 00:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Big Brother 2012 (UK)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Leaky caldron. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 23:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

[edit] Thank you so much

For your kind words on my talk page. They really have helped me. As for the writing thing, I was dragged up that-a-way! It's in the breeding ... I'm currently (slowly) recruiting my younger daughter to WP; she will probably eventually do some excellent copy-editing, cleanup, and general gnoming around the 'pedia (when she can find time, in between looking after her two boys!) I'm still working on the other offspring. This, of course, is the ultimate solution to acquiring good new editors - breed 'em yourself! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Please ...

The RfC on GoodDay has been a long time coming and results from his behaviour not from some nationalist conspiracy to control a series of articles. Neutral editors and friends of GoodDay have all said the same thing as those of us you are branding as nationaliists. Personally I have always gone out of my way to declare my allegiances on my user page for the sake of transparency. If you think I or other editors are engaged in some form of control exercise then you should raise an RfC or bring it up at ANI. If you are not prepared to do that then the snide attackes and your rather emotive language fail [[W{:AGF| to assume good faith]] and constitute WP:NPA personal attacks and the use of innuendo]]. None of which helps calm things down. If you have specific issues raise them as issues so people can deal with them. --Snowded TALK 14:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

@LC: What is this comment supposed to mean? If it's attacking my integrity, among others, I'd be grateful if you would withdraw it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Possible?

Might this help? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 12 December 2011

[edit] The Signpost: 19 December 2011

[edit] Editorial Comity Run Amok?

While your editorial tenor and pursuit of comity the WP:Verifiability discussion process is most commendable, expressing both a support and oppose position on the current question of stylistics might be considered by some as going a bit overboard, no? ;-) JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Have a great Christmas

Figgy Pudding with flaming brandy.jpg Christmas pudding is hot stuff!
Have a wonderful Christmas. As the song says: "I wish you a hopeful Christmas, I wish you a brave new year; All anguish, pain, and sadness Leave your heart and let your road be clear." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 26 December 2011

[edit] Iris Robinson

Note that this user is not "new", but a long-term IP hopper whose behavior matches up with a user indef-blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not a discussion I care to host on my talk page. He isn't a vandal and you're not a sock, that I'm aware. The issue of Iris Robinson should be on her talk page and you two can take your squabble elsewhere. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 02:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Your purposefully deceptive comments on my talk page

Your most recent comment on my talk page is a deliberate misstatement of fact, and you know it. The BLPN discussion on the Stonewall mock-awards was lengthy and extensive, you participated in it, and it rather evidently produced no consensus support for the disputed, contentious content you insist on adding to a BLP. It's hard to see your claim otherwise as anything but deliberate dishonesty. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

To avoid turning the case into an unpleasant mess, all those who chose to chime in on the various page of the ArbCom case should try to be constructive; in this edit, your comment [n]o, I made it up as a piece of [WP:OR]] just to provoke a few politically correct, wikilawyering, dicks to bite. I don't think that you are in the slightest bit curious and would denigrate whatever personal evidence I presented was incredibly unhelpful. You might want to consider redacting that... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio. I'll remove it when what I consider to be the provocative, cheap shot question from an Admin. is also reworded/redacted to make it look less like an attempt to embarrass me (or "call me out" in the current vernacular). (and his equally pointy reply). Best. Leaky Caldron 14:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I must admit I didn't consider the question provocative (though Boing's reply was hostile too, I agree, and I'm about to write him a short message); I understand you perceived it as such and reacted accordingly, but, in my opinion, it would have been better if you had just tried to deescalate... In these cases to reply in kind can only end up causing a vicious circle... Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, I'm sure this was all just a misunderstanding - I was not intentionally meaning to be provocative and there was no cheap shot intended, but I can see you honestly read it that way and I can see how it was possible to misinterpret. One thing I have been surprised to learn in all of this is that the word in question is considered such a taboo sexist insult to so many Americans, and I've learned that through reading of the experience of a number of people. And I really could come to believe your assertion that it is offensive to the vast majority of English-speaking people if I saw your reasoning behind it, as I have had no experience of such matters anywhere outside of the UK (I have been to the USA a number of times, but I was fortunate enough never to say "c***" while I was there ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost: 02 January 2012


[edit] not targeted at anyone

My note on Pesky's page was entirely intended to be supportive and not aimed at any editor -- I'm not actually aware of any interaction Pesky and you have had over the BD case. I've seen both your names on the MF case pages, but that's a pretty busy street. (If you commented on BD, I've forgotten, as a general I just tend not to remember who was involved in specific discussions.) Nobody Ent 03:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Much deserved!

Opinion Barnstar.png Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
For the wisdom of separating the front side from the "back side" of Wikipedia! Montanabw(talk) 19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Wikipedia-Medcab.svg

Dear Leaky caldron: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leaky_caldron&oldid=480512555"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export