User talk:Ronhjones: Difference between revisions
→Page deletion: reply |
→Mass deletion of categories - perhaps upmerge the articles?: request explanation |
||
| Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
::Sorry - "Subcategories" half way down on what page? - [[User:Htonl|htonl]] ([[User talk:Htonl|talk]]) |
::Sorry - "Subcategories" half way down on what page? - [[User:Htonl|htonl]] ([[User talk:Htonl|talk]]) |
||
:::Ooops - missed the ":" - link should show now. '''[[User:Ronhjones|<span style="border:1px solid;color:#dfdfdf; padding:1px;background:#ffffdf"><font color="green"> Ron<font color="red">h</font>jones </font></span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Ronhjones| (Talk)]]</sup> 23:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
:::Ooops - missed the ":" - link should show now. '''[[User:Ronhjones|<span style="border:1px solid;color:#dfdfdf; padding:1px;background:#ffffdf"><font color="green"> Ron<font color="red">h</font>jones </font></span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Ronhjones| (Talk)]]</sup> 23:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
Ronhjones, when you deleted the categories, did you consider whether they were useful or only whether they were created by a sock? Also, I understand that upmerging may be boring work but it is part of maintaining the category system when deleting populated categories, and I wonder why you chose to act on the deletions if you weren't willing or able to take the time to do the upmerging as well. It appears to me that your actions have created a mess for others to clean up - see comments from [[user:Bearcat]] and [[user:Diannaa]] and others at [[WT:GAY]], for example - and I would appreciate hearing why you chose to act as you did. Thanks. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 22:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== ''The Signpost'': 31 July 2013 == |
== ''The Signpost'': 31 July 2013 == |
||
Revision as of 22:32, 5 August 2013
Status: Unknown 
on English Wikipedia
 |
|
| This is Ronhjones's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
TUSC token 8fd3211ebe04214532d860745d268de2
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
April 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from 2015 Formula One season, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. ...William 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- One cannot remove a speedy from a page that does not exist. It was a re-creation. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- You created[1] the article today. You're not permitted to remove the CSD tags. Maybe I should this to ANI since you're an administrator who doesn't think WP policies apply to them....William 00:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- The article has already been deleted (see the logs) - I was re-creating the article (there's no rules about that), and yes I forgot to not restore the last edit, so I had to edit the text - maybe I should have deleted it again, and then undeleted - but that's getting a bit messy. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to take this to ANI tomorrow. You were not allowed to take down the G4 tag and you've evaded that point of mine not once but twice. Apparently you don't understand either WP:CSD or think that as an administrator that it doesn't apply to you....William 00:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not evading the point
- Speedy added at 14:50, 30 April 2013
- Article deleted at 17:46, 30 April 2013 - the speedy was actioned and not deleted - its job had been completed.
- Article re-created at 18:52, 30 April 2013 to allow full discussion at AfD.
- Ronhjones (Talk) 20:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I CSD the article here[2]. You took down[3] the tag here in violation of WP:CSD. No intervening edits. You say you didn't create, this edit summary[4] says otherwise. The page's history[5] don't lie....William 00:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sadly Wrong! this does not show the edits in between them - sad, but that's the WP way. As I have said - see the logs - they show the extra edits, including the actioning of your speedy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=2015+Formula+One+season Ronhjones (Talk) 18:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I CSD the article here[2]. You took down[3] the tag here in violation of WP:CSD. No intervening edits. You say you didn't create, this edit summary[4] says otherwise. The page's history[5] don't lie....William 00:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not evading the point
- I'm going to take this to ANI tomorrow. You were not allowed to take down the G4 tag and you've evaded that point of mine not once but twice. Apparently you don't understand either WP:CSD or think that as an administrator that it doesn't apply to you....William 00:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- The article has already been deleted (see the logs) - I was re-creating the article (there's no rules about that), and yes I forgot to not restore the last edit, so I had to edit the text - maybe I should have deleted it again, and then undeleted - but that's getting a bit messy. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- You created[1] the article today. You're not permitted to remove the CSD tags. Maybe I should this to ANI since you're an administrator who doesn't think WP policies apply to them....William 00:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Another editor brought this issue up at WT:CSD, here. I personally think this is a really good argument for not using Twinkle at all, ever, but that's just me. No objections to any of your actions in this matter - I likely would have done the same. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm following up on the WT:CSD discussion. Were you aware of the creation protection applied to the page by User:RHaworth? Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Have you seen this question? Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- The one that says "(expires 18:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)) (AfD decision)" - I could not find an AfD decision to lock until this date - and anyway that date appliedto 2015 would be obviously wrong, that would be far too late. He's done what I tend to do - pick a time from the list we get offered and let someone worry about unlocking it later. The key thing for any of these articles is to find some season specific data. The block delete of 6 articles was quite correct - it's useless to have an article that just says "This is the X season of F1". Ronhjones (Talk) 18:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Did you discuss re-creation with RHaworth, WP:Deletion review, or WP:WikiProject Formula One? I'm concerned because you made two unilateral admin actions – editing through creation protection and restoring post-G4 – to advance your preferred outcome. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- In all honesty, I don't remember it being protected, and I certainly did not remove any protection (otherwise it would be in the logs!) - there is a hint of software bug here - maybe admins creating a salted document don't get any indication of protection status?. As for the G4 - well I have discussed this in the CSD talk pages - it stupid to expect any editor to know what an article was like years later, but G4 says "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion" - how can a non-admin say that? Ronhjones (Talk) 17:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just tested that theory out on a user sandbox - there's is the smallest of hints that the page is protected in the logs showing - the edit window in not a red background like a normal protected page, and when you create it is has no protection and there is nothing in the log. So with the large entry of deletes - I missed the one line about the protection. Ronhjones (Talk) 17:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- The lack of visible notice may be an oversight or by design. I'll look into it. Non-admins cannot review deleted revisions, but they can read the previous AfD. The final check must be made by the reviewing admin. The appeal process is to contact the deleting admin, User:INeverCry, or file a DRV. You do have the argument that the sources were new and different from the assumption that existing contracts would continue, but both of your F1 Fanatic sources have been removed as unconfirmed speculation. I wrote a possible WP:IAR justification due to the live AfD, but you were not aware that it had been opened. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Non admins can read a previous AfD - but they cannot (unless it was a recent deletion and they remember the page) make any judgement into how similar the page is - and G4 requires that. The issue about the lack of protection warning by a red background - I have raised it at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Is_this_a_bug_or_a_feature.3F - and have asked to file a bug report - which I will do. We expect protected pages to have a red background when editing, it's an extremely useful feature to prevent accidental editing of a protected page. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now reported at Bugzilla - Bug 48411 Ronhjones (Talk) 19:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean that a G4 tag placed by a non-admin is automatically invalid due to insufficient information? As I wrote, the reviewing/deleting admin is responsible for the final check. Thanks for the VPT question and bug report. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now reported at Bugzilla - Bug 48411 Ronhjones (Talk) 19:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Non admins can read a previous AfD - but they cannot (unless it was a recent deletion and they remember the page) make any judgement into how similar the page is - and G4 requires that. The issue about the lack of protection warning by a red background - I have raised it at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Is_this_a_bug_or_a_feature.3F - and have asked to file a bug report - which I will do. We expect protected pages to have a red background when editing, it's an extremely useful feature to prevent accidental editing of a protected page. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- The lack of visible notice may be an oversight or by design. I'll look into it. Non-admins cannot review deleted revisions, but they can read the previous AfD. The final check must be made by the reviewing admin. The appeal process is to contact the deleting admin, User:INeverCry, or file a DRV. You do have the argument that the sources were new and different from the assumption that existing contracts would continue, but both of your F1 Fanatic sources have been removed as unconfirmed speculation. I wrote a possible WP:IAR justification due to the live AfD, but you were not aware that it had been opened. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just tested that theory out on a user sandbox - there's is the smallest of hints that the page is protected in the logs showing - the edit window in not a red background like a normal protected page, and when you create it is has no protection and there is nothing in the log. So with the large entry of deletes - I missed the one line about the protection. Ronhjones (Talk) 17:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- In all honesty, I don't remember it being protected, and I certainly did not remove any protection (otherwise it would be in the logs!) - there is a hint of software bug here - maybe admins creating a salted document don't get any indication of protection status?. As for the G4 - well I have discussed this in the CSD talk pages - it stupid to expect any editor to know what an article was like years later, but G4 says "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion" - how can a non-admin say that? Ronhjones (Talk) 17:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Did you discuss re-creation with RHaworth, WP:Deletion review, or WP:WikiProject Formula One? I'm concerned because you made two unilateral admin actions – editing through creation protection and restoring post-G4 – to advance your preferred outcome. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- The one that says "(expires 18:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)) (AfD decision)" - I could not find an AfD decision to lock until this date - and anyway that date appliedto 2015 would be obviously wrong, that would be far too late. He's done what I tend to do - pick a time from the list we get offered and let someone worry about unlocking it later. The key thing for any of these articles is to find some season specific data. The block delete of 6 articles was quite correct - it's useless to have an article that just says "This is the X season of F1". Ronhjones (Talk) 18:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Disruption and unauthorized deletion in the Satyasraya article
- Hi Ron, the same user Coromandelcoast who caused an earlier disruption to the Vikramaditya VI article, has once again made unauthorized deletions and edits to the Satyasraya article. As I once pointed out earlier, sock puppets like him and several others are basically targetting my edits and contributions to such articles. For your kind information.
- Even Mayasandra has reverted your restoration of Vikramaditya VI exceeding his brief as a wiki contributor.Just noticed that on seeing that article. Srirangam99 (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- There's not much more one can do - it looks like the editors know that they need only 10 edits on a non-protected page then they can edit a semi-protected article. If it gets often repeated then the only way forward is for full protection, with all edits having to be discussed on the talk page. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Ron, that is what I was trying to say. Well you are saying about full protection, I am for the same, because this way contributors like us have no way out against vandals of this type. Besides, I have pointed out to you also many times that I leave messages on talk pages of the articles as well as on the pages of these sock puppets to discuss article content and intended changes, but possibly it is one or maximum two persons who have created multiple i.ds. including many a times having the i.d. of a mere i.p. address, they seem to be getting away with murder. I request you formally to kindly fully protect articles like Vikramaditya VI, Veera Ballala II and Satyasraya leaving a message so as to prevent any unauthorized changes to articles without valid discussions on content. I say so because only admins like you are authorized to take such actions. You can reply to me on my talk page. Thanks in advance.Srirangam99 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK, let's see what happens now... Ronhjones (Talk) 17:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Let me know if the page(s) are showing a wrong version Ronhjones (Talk) 18:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I thank you for the action. While the Satyasraya page is showing the right version, both Veera Ballala II and Vikramaditya VI articles are showing the wrong version. Let me know if I can help in restoring them to the right version. Srirangam99 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Go to the history page(s), click the date of the correct version and give me the url that is showing in your browser - it will end like... "oldid=559406842" - gives me the version number to restore. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ok Sir, done the same. As far as Vikramaditya VI is concerned, this is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vikramaditya_VI&diff=554758816&oldid=553188941 In specific, the version on the right of this page, is the right version, before it got vandalized. In Veera Ballala II your own intervention of 24th December protected the more stable version of this article. This is the link/url as instructed by you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veera_Ballala_II&diff=529621237&oldid=529604944. The version showing on opening the page was the one before it got disturbed. Thank you for your guidance.Srirangam99 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Sir, been busy??? I have done the needful as you desired. The links you wanted are given above this post. Thanks.Srirangam99 (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Very busy and you gave me diff links, rather than version links, with my version as the right hand side - so not sure what you want. Is this the correct version?...
- The second diff you shown has the same versions on both sides...!
- Ronhjones (Talk) 23:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sir, thanks for pointing out. Well, I think this time I have got the hang of it. The version to restore is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vikramaditya_VI&oldid=552129235. Hopefully, I haven't muffed it up again!! Yeah, and the version to restore Veera Ballala II back to its pre-vandalization stage is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veera_Ballala_II&oldid=529604944 Thanks.Srirangam99 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think I have it OK now. Enjoy. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sir, thanks for pointing out. Well, I think this time I have got the hang of it. The version to restore is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vikramaditya_VI&oldid=552129235. Hopefully, I haven't muffed it up again!! Yeah, and the version to restore Veera Ballala II back to its pre-vandalization stage is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veera_Ballala_II&oldid=529604944 Thanks.Srirangam99 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hello Sir, been busy??? I have done the needful as you desired. The links you wanted are given above this post. Thanks.Srirangam99 (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ok Sir, done the same. As far as Vikramaditya VI is concerned, this is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vikramaditya_VI&diff=554758816&oldid=553188941 In specific, the version on the right of this page, is the right version, before it got vandalized. In Veera Ballala II your own intervention of 24th December protected the more stable version of this article. This is the link/url as instructed by you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veera_Ballala_II&diff=529621237&oldid=529604944. The version showing on opening the page was the one before it got disturbed. Thank you for your guidance.Srirangam99 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Go to the history page(s), click the date of the correct version and give me the url that is showing in your browser - it will end like... "oldid=559406842" - gives me the version number to restore. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- I thank you for the action. While the Satyasraya page is showing the right version, both Veera Ballala II and Vikramaditya VI articles are showing the wrong version. Let me know if I can help in restoring them to the right version. Srirangam99 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Let me know if the page(s) are showing a wrong version Ronhjones (Talk) 18:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK, let's see what happens now... Ronhjones (Talk) 17:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Ron, that is what I was trying to say. Well you are saying about full protection, I am for the same, because this way contributors like us have no way out against vandals of this type. Besides, I have pointed out to you also many times that I leave messages on talk pages of the articles as well as on the pages of these sock puppets to discuss article content and intended changes, but possibly it is one or maximum two persons who have created multiple i.ds. including many a times having the i.d. of a mere i.p. address, they seem to be getting away with murder. I request you formally to kindly fully protect articles like Vikramaditya VI, Veera Ballala II and Satyasraya leaving a message so as to prevent any unauthorized changes to articles without valid discussions on content. I say so because only admins like you are authorized to take such actions. You can reply to me on my talk page. Thanks in advance.Srirangam99 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- There's not much more one can do - it looks like the editors know that they need only 10 edits on a non-protected page then they can edit a semi-protected article. If it gets often repeated then the only way forward is for full protection, with all edits having to be discussed on the talk page. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- Even Mayasandra has reverted your restoration of Vikramaditya VI exceeding his brief as a wiki contributor.Just noticed that on seeing that article. Srirangam99 (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Commons:WikiProject BSicon
You are invited to join Commons:Commons:WikiProject BSicon. Useddenim (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:1920 Evil Returns poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:1920 Evil Returns poster.jpg. 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 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Vandals strike again...sigh... Ronhjones (Talk) 00:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 July 2013
- In the media: Wikipedia flamewars
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Religion
- Discussion report: Partially disambiguated page names, page protection policy, and more
- Traffic report: Gleeless
- Featured content: Engineering and the arts
- Arbitration report: Infoboxes case opens
Deletion of article on the LA Screenings page and banning of the VideoAge Account
Hello, my account name is GiulianovaCityMan. I'm writing from my personal wikipedia account (hence the silly name). I work at VideoAge, a television industry magazine about to launch a think tank and a consultant service: we thought we'd wet start this whole think tank thing by taking it onto ourselves (via the interns) to take care of and edit the pages dealing with television industry-exclusive content. The official magazine account was banned for having the same name as our magazine, and I understand how it could have seemed like we were self-promoting, and was probably mechanical and had nothing to do with you. However, what I can't understand is why a page on the LA Screenings (among others, I believe) citing articles we have published are taken down for copyright infringement, even with substantial editing of the content. Further, we have included and cited material published by other magazines (who are also our competitors) to avoid blatant self-promotion, demonstrate notability, and most importantly, not rely on our own (copyrighted) material too much, as this whole deletion-thing has happened twice already, but to no avail. I'm donating the content personally written by me to the best of my abilities through wikipedia's channels, but I'd like to know what I can do to make sure no account gets banned or no page gets outright deleted in the future.
Thanks, hope you can help clear this up GiulianovaCityMan — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiulianovaCityMan (talk • contribs) 01:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- As you said, you have a silly name. All editors are therefore 100% anonymous. I could say I was Mick Jagger - you could not prove otherwise. Thus any copying of an existing web page is a copyright violation as there is no simple way of knowing that the author may or may not hold the copyright. We have a process of using web pages - it's fully outlined at WP:DCM - but simply put...
- The copyright owner sends in an e-mail (from WP:CONSENT) to donate some rights so that the pages become CC-BY-SA - each web page to be donated much be listed (unless the whole site is donated) OR
- One places the CC-BY-SA logo on the web pages to be used (and removes any "All rights reserved" notice). Note we only allow CC-BY-SA or CC-BY or CC-zero content to be used.
- Hope that helps. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Question
It's XadXgamerX asking "Could I please edit some pages on Wikipedia.org (Wikipedia)?". — Preceding unsigned comment added by XadXgamerX (talk • contribs) 01:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone can edit Wikipedia - permission is not required..
- Wikipedia is a "wiki", which means that everyone can edit pages. You don't need to apply or get special permission to join us. At the top of each page is an "edit" label. Try it for example at Wikipedia:Sandbox, a practice area where you can make changes.
- You don't even need to log in to edit, although creating an account gives you more options and helps you keep track of your contributions. You can create an account at Special:UserLogin/signup.
- There is no central editorial board; all edits are made by individual members of the Wikipedia community.
- For more information see the introduction Wikipedia:Introduction and tutorial Wikipedia:Tutorial. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Trolling vs. vandalism
I saw that you recently declined an AIV that I filed against Ai-mu-mu. This account has done nothing but spam-fill talk pages with gibberish that includes some words that by themselves, might have a vague connection to the article subject. This is a shining example. This is whatchamacallit "an obvious troll is obvious", in other words – a vandal. Please reconsider. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Added Final warning Ronhjones (Talk) 11:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Heh... that went well
Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Give them enough rope... then there will be less likely of a swift unblock, once blocked... Ronhjones (Talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Aren't these two IP's (78.34.170.205 and 84.44.233.165) his sockpuppets? I really believe he's here to f@^k with Wikipedia and test our patience... and most likely trolling under a different account/IP by now. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Give them enough rope... then there will be less likely of a swift unblock, once blocked... Ronhjones (Talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Heh... that went well
- They all resolve to "Germany Koeln Netcologne Dynamic Ip Pool" - so I can only suggest report them at WP:SPI, then you ask for a checkuser to see if they are all the same PC. But since he keeps switching IPs so much - I doubt if we can blaock them all Ronhjones (Talk) 14:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Chemical diagram request
Hi Ronhjones, I see at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request that you take requests for chemical structure diagrams. I was wondering if you could do one for anthracimycin? Diagram found here. Chris857 (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Not that difficult. Give me a day or so to fit it in (New PC - I've got to install a few bits). Ronhjones (Talk) 00:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Done Found all the bits quicker than I thought I would - File:Anthracimycin.svg Ronhjones (Talk) 01:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Mass deletion of categories - perhaps upmerge the articles?
Hello. I have come across your recent deletion of the gay-related categories created by a sockpuppet of a banned user. I would venture to suggest that it would be helpful to replace the deleted categories with parent categories that remain, rather than just deleting the categories outright. That way, the articles do at least stay somewhere within the appropriate category tree. To consider an example, when deleting Category:Gay men's organisations in the United Kingdom, you could have recategorized the articles into Category:LGBT organisations in the United Kingdom. Thanks, htonl (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- A Lot of the pages were very multi-catagorised anyway. I only did a very small proportion, then I got bored (let someone else have a go...) - there are still about 130 categories up for deletion - Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (scroll down to Subcategories : half way down) - referring to many hundreds of pages I suspect. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry - "Subcategories" half way down on what page? - htonl (talk)
- Ooops - missed the ":" - link should show now. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry - "Subcategories" half way down on what page? - htonl (talk)
Ronhjones, when you deleted the categories, did you consider whether they were useful or only whether they were created by a sock? Also, I understand that upmerging may be boring work but it is part of maintaining the category system when deleting populated categories, and I wonder why you chose to act on the deletions if you weren't willing or able to take the time to do the upmerging as well. It appears to me that your actions have created a mess for others to clean up - see comments from user:Bearcat and user:Diannaa and others at WT:GAY, for example - and I would appreciate hearing why you chose to act as you did. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2013
Belated thanks PLUS new request
Gooday Ron - thanks for your advice on the non-existent Dave Potter (motorcyclist) page and deleted Gary Johnson pages a good while back, now. I intended to get back to you as I had more queries but have gradually managed to resolve most of them myself, hence time has marched on. As I have too many pages under progress, I decided to leave these two 'as is' for the present.
Could you please look at the ongoing vandalism on Duncan Bannatyne's page here. I did a few edits about a month since, hence it's on my watchlist, but this level of puerile interference - mostly but not exclusively from IP addresses - is way beyond me (how to deal with it).
Thanks, Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorted - page semi-protected Ronhjones (Talk) 22:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Muchas Gracias, Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the page, I was getting a little worried about the 3RR (I know it was OK, as it was vandalism). Thanks, Matty.007 19:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- It was getting rather silly. :-) Ronhjones (Talk) 19:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I will try and get DYK and/or ITN tomorrow. Thanks, Matty.007 19:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Unless someone gets there first... Matty.007 19:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I will try and get DYK and/or ITN tomorrow. Thanks, Matty.007 19:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Page deletion
|
Page deletion |
| Hello friend, please undelete my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brook_framework. I'm the author of Brook framework. Silvioprog (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC) |
- All editors are anonymous. You have to use WP:DCM and then we can undelete it. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)