Jump to content

User talk:Ronhjones: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Fazeel2009: new section
Ceo7 (talk | contribs)
18 edits
No edit summary
Line 326: Line 326:


I ''think'' he was trying to blank the [[Ilyas hussain ibrahim|page]], so I've replaced it with SD-blank. [[User:HalfShadow|HalfShadow]] ([[User talk:HalfShadow|talk]]) 22:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I ''think'' he was trying to blank the [[Ilyas hussain ibrahim|page]], so I've replaced it with SD-blank. [[User:HalfShadow|HalfShadow]] ([[User talk:HalfShadow|talk]]) 22:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Who r u

Don't make me call admin

U my postings NO

Revision as of 22:39, 21 October 2009

Status: Unknown

 
Local time: 06:55, 18 June 2024 GMT [refresh]. Click here to refresh.
  		   0  0  0  28  116



Tuesday
18
June
06:55 UTC
Welcome to Ronhjones' Talk page

on English Wikipedia


Leave me a message | Send me an email.

Hi there! To keep the flow of conversations, I like to keep threads on one page where possible. So, if you post a message here, I'll probably respond to it here. Conversely, if I post a message on your talk page, you can respond there if you wish; since I've edited your talk page I'll have it on my watchlist. Thanks!

If you wish to contact me privately you can email me

User:MrKIA11/Archive Box

Arbitration for Quantum Mysticism

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Quantum mysticism article and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, --☯Lightbound☯ talk 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you sent me a message about an edit I made to a psychochemical weapons page. The only problem here is that I didn't make any edits to any psychochemical weapons pages.131.212.202.74 (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, wait, nevermind. I remember that edit now. I had no idea wikipedia made pages tracking this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.212.202.74 (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For your concern about the current political climate in Garfield Hts. It seems that Ron Finerty, (aka Bobblehead or Ronf57) chooses to edit this article with his opinions of the current incumbant Mayor and certain Council members. It should be noted that Wagner promised Finertys' wife the position of economic development director on the off chance he gets elected. Its as if the people of Garfield Hts dont know dirty tricks when they see them. Keep an eye on Finertys comments as they get more laughable. Custom500 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Spermophagia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Spermophagia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spermophagia. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my edit

I apologize... I didn't realize that it would be considered unconstructive... thanks for the heads up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.248.36 (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

The recent message you left me regarding my edit to the page Taxpayer March on Washington appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the message was constructive, please ensure that you review the Life magazine "slideshow" before intervening. You may also wish to read the rulebook on External Links. Thank you. Kenatipo (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of "condescending, pro-Obama" was hardly constructive, it was very POV, and unreferenced.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More important than that, it was TRUE. Please compare the Life slideshow with the Time photo essay before making any further helpful comments. Kenatipo (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ron, are you sure you know what you're talking about? External links sections don't require footnotes or references. Kenatipo (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not (I'm sure that there is nothing to stop you adding one if it fits), but it was still very POV - since the article said (I did look at it) Somewhere around 60,000 demonstrators, many from the so-called "Tea Party" tax protest movement, gathered in Washington on Saturday, September 12, 2009, to express concerns about President Obama's health care reforms - I would not call that "pro-Obama" - or am I missing something?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One reason the Life slideshow is POV is because it attempts to persuade you that most protesters attended the 912dc march for the purpose of calling Obama names: ". . . while also taking the opportunity to voice their belief that Obama is not really an American; is a threat to liberty; is a "spoiled brat"; and is a socialist, or a fascist, or a Maoist, or an Islamist, or perhaps all of those things, and more. Their signs say it all." But as you know from the Wikipedia, that was not their main reason for coming to DC and marching. If it's not POV, why the sneering words "so-called 'Tea Party'"? Kenatipo (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Life editor is fascinated by the Obama Joker image. In the first 4 photos, we see it 10 times. But, it was not that prevalent at the march. You can review dozens of 912dc photos on Flickr without seeing it. Out of 22 photo captions, 9 captions are negative, 8 are neutral and 5 are questionable/borderline. The negative captions are on slides 1 (the intro comments), 10, 11, 13, 15, 18,, 19, 20 and 21, the most offensive being 20, "somebody's kids apparently need help". If the Life editor had been more honest, the piece would have been titled "Tea Party Protesters Insult Our President". That's why I describe it as pro-Obama -- because it's more concerned with perceived insults to Obama than it is with what most people there were protesting. If you compare the Time photo-essay verbiage with the Life slideshow verbiage, you should be able to see the difference in POV. Time is NPOV, Life is not. Kenatipo (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously US politics are much more subtle than ours. We vote them in, then hate them for 3-4 years and like them for 12 months, and vote them in again. After 3 terms we get very fed up and try the other lot. As for sex/race/etc., we don't care - we've had Maggie, now we've a one-eyed Scot... C'est la vie  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
God save the Queen! I copied a bunch of what I've said here over to the Taxpayer March discussion page, which is where it should probably continue. A new discussion section has started. I appreciate your time and your comments, really. As you can tell, I have way too much free time on my hands. Is Wikipedia really Greek for "the blind leading the blind"? Well, as we Wikipedians say, "The Britannica wasn't written in a day!" Kenatipo (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unlawful

at the article "vigilante"

i changed the following "unlawful" into unjust (as shown with the >> and << characters below)

"A vigilante is someone who unlawfully punishes a criminal, or participates in a mob or conspiracy to mete out >>unlawful<< punishment to a criminal or criminals."

this is because vigilantes act on what they think is unjust, not necessarily on what the government thinks is unjust.

but this change was reverted by you, i'd like an explanation please85.144.133.46 (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page Because "illegal" is correct. Anything else is just a particular POV on that government's laws.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lets continue this on the talk page85.144.133.46 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question on "Vandalism" re Taxpayer March on Washington article

Hi, again. I'm interested in knowing more about the "why's" and the "how's" of the reversions of my addition of wording to the Life slideshow External Link. EL guidelines, I think, suggest that links with a POV should be so noted by adding a comment. EL guidelines do not require that ELs be footnoted (I looked at dozens of ELs in many articles - not a single footnote). My opinion is that anyone who compared the Time and the Life photo-essays/slideshows would conclude that one was neutral and one had a clear POV. I wasn't violating any policy by Being Bold - just the opposite. Now, the words I chose to add may have been too bold for some, but that's no reason for reverting the whole thing -- just tone them down a little. Requiring that the whole issue be discussed on the talk page is like requiring group consensus on whether 2 + 2 really equals 4. My adding a comment to an EL is not vandalism. Which brings me to my question: why does Huggle classify my revert of APK's revert as "vandalism"? thanks. Kenatipo (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused. Where did the word "vandal" come up? I don't see it in the huggle template or the edit summary. Anyway, as you are interested, when in Huggle one sees a "diff" view - I saw this diff - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taxpayer_March_on_Washington&diff=next&oldid=319259904 - therefore I saw AgnosticPreachersKid had reverted you because of POV, and then you added an obvious POV text (with a minor edit flag) and had not discussed it on the talk page. I therefore just hit the "Q" key - that's all that's needed in huggle to revert, send a template message, and move on to display the next page of possible vandalism. There are typically 150 pages changed a minute in English Wikipedia, and it can get up to 20 vandalized pages per minute at bad times, so the time one spends on any page tend to be as short as reasonably practicable as some pages take more time than others - e.g from the simple obvious vandalism of adding "fred was ere" to more complex items like - someone changed the co-ordinates of Tucumcari Mountain last night, which meant a had to load up both versions of the page in FF3 and click through to try the co-ords in Google Earth so see if I had a vandal or a proper correction (it was the former).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Huggle is an application for dealing with vandalism, written in .NET. It was originally developed by Gurch." "Category: Vandalism removal tools". It's a sort of mindless, shoot first and ask questions later type of tool! The POV didn't start with me, it started with the editor of the Life slideshow. All I was doing was documenting it, per EL guidelines. If anything should have been reverted, it's APK's reversion of my comment. Thanks for letting me know the process, though. Kenatipo (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we didn't have items like Huggle, Twinkle and Vandal Fighter , and of course users willing to devote time to reverting vandals - then you would not have a Wikipedia worth looking at.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle

Bah! I didn't revert right on the Chevy page, thanks for fixing it =) SparksBoy (Huggle) (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did HG not give you a warning about the revert - that the revert was to a warned IP? It did for me, that's why I went back a few pages first.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't give me a warning, it's been bugging on me lately. SparksBoy (Huggle) (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting those nasty edits.

I noticed that you reverted edits that User:Locutus0fLegi0n made to my pages. First of all, thank you.

I've had problems with them before, and they seem to hate me for no reason. They know full well what they are doing, and won't stop unless they're perma-banned.

I need to get them perma-banned, however I don't know how to go about that. They've been after me, off and on, for the past few weeks -- I had been impersonated on YouTube, my life has been mocked, and yet you see these messages and think nothing of it?

"We have your dox." They claim to have my information, but...

They need to stop, but I don't know the proper channels to go through. Daniel Benfield (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of WP:ATTACK. If you have WP:TW enabled (does not work in IE), then you revert any edit that is bad and it will also allow you to post a standard warning (level 1 to level 4) using the "warn" tab, after that you can use the "arv" tab to quickly report the user to WP:AIV, where they may be blocked if an admin decides.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

19:10.54       ClueBot-2: Possible vandalism: Tank changed by Jollybro replacing entire content with something else on (N/A). 19:10.54       ClueBot-3: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tank&action=history | http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=319715299&oldid=319715114 ) 19:10.54       ClueBot-5: Reverting ... 19:10.55       ClueBot-2: Grr! Beaten by Ronhjones.

ClueBot: 0 - You: 1

Anyways I just saw that in the IRC and wanted to say congrats. :) --[[::User:Sidonuke|Sidonuke]] ([[::User talk:Sidonuke|talk]] :: [[::Special:Contributions/Sidonuke|contribs]]) 23:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) It's not often one beats ClueBot - especially I think working from here (UK), it seems US editors tend to beat me - I suspect their revert gets to Florida before mine (which I suspect has to go via the NL mirror).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby-Doo

Sorry for my revision of Scooby-Doo, was just trying to remove rather a lot of vandalism (picures of genitallia, words changed to penis etc) by some random. Apparently Marek69 had the same idea, but noticed some things I didn't (so reverted it further).

Just thought I'd let ya know Alphathon

It's been a busy night out there...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for Scooby-Doo (and Double Posting)

Hi. Sorry to leave two messages, but I'm a little tired atm so forgot to put my sig and a title in the prev message (which I have quoted below).

"Sorry for my revision of Scooby-Doo, was just trying to remove rather a lot of vandalism (picures of genitallia, words changed to penis etc) by some random. Apparently Marek69 had the same idea, but noticed some things I didn't (so reverted it further).

Just thought I'd let ya know"

Sorry again Alphathon (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tired! It's only 1:20am here... :-)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, It's only 1:20am here as well. I did only get about 4hrs. sleep last night though... Alphathon (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you, Ronhjones, for watching out for my userpage. It's been continually vandalized by the same individual for the past few days. I very much appreciate your vigilance! Basket of Puppies 22:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Chess

Hi Ron.

I had added the Diamond Chess page in good faith as something that might be of interest. Other chess variants appeared, such as hexagonal chess. I received notice from the moderators that Wikipedia is "not a gaming site" and that it should be deleted.

I thought this a bit inconsistent since numerous other games appear, but to comply, I removed the offending article.

Now, I am getting warnings and final warnings for having taken it down.

I am not really sure what I should do at this point. If you folks want it up, I will put it up. If you want it down, I will take it down. If you want it modified in some way, and then put up, I am happy to do that as well.

Please advise as to what I need to do, and remove the warnings from my ID.

My intent was (and still is) to share, never to offend.

Thanks,

Jim Guyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimguyer (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo,

How can I be an Admin666isactuallyaholynumber (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:RFA  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Capital Territory Debating Union and User:124.168.125.162

This looks like a content dispute to me, rather than vandalism. See User_talk:Rrburke#ACT_Debating_Union_Entry. Cheers. 22:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Deleting large chunks and no edit summaries will normally get a revert, either by an editor or by a bot.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Chess

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Could you go ahead and remove reference to Diamond Chess from chess variants for now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_variant

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimguyer (talk • contribs) 20:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate that...maybe I can repay the favor sometime. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, always happy to keep the user pages unsullied.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kind Gesture

I will ask you to please talk to me prior to making any changes. Have the respect that I am working on a page. I would dearly appreciate it. Thank you! By the way there are Thousands of pages on Wiki that need to be worked on, that have been ignored for quite some time. Please appreciate those that are working towards completion. Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelmanager (talk • contribs) 22:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot delete an AFD template - the discussion page has been created at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/21_Magazine - the template is required until that discussion is closed.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD template is unwarranted and not valid my page was confirmed yesterday! Too many editors on here, go purge the thousands of wiki pages that need mass edits that no one is working on. Please, I am trying my best here. Work with me!!! Modelmanager (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Modelmanager[reply]

Maybe, but it's too late - you cannot delete the template - please make your case on the discussion page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for looking out for my userpage! Dac04 (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. Thanks for the feedback.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knee jerk reverters

I get tried of editors like you did you even bother reading my edit summary did you look at the edit history or the talk page to see the background of Haberstr edits or the fact he reverted any edits done in the past few months to the last time he tried to push his version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.38.135 (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other then User:Philip Baird Shearer, if you are based on the September discussion, I don't see much in a way of consensus in regards of those changes even though I agree it should be compressed a bit. JForget 23:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did bother to read the talk page - it was flagged in the edit summary - That section on reduction was only edited by three editors - two for reduction and one not - that is no consensus, you really need some more agreement for large reductions.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fazeel2009

I think he was trying to blank the page, so I've replaced it with SD-blank. HalfShadow (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who r u

Don't make me call admin

U my postings NO

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ronhjones&oldid=321281580"