User talk:Ronhjones

Sunday

10

November

21:43 UTC

Welcome to Ronhjones' Talk page

on English Wikipedia

Ronhjones' Navigation bar

Home

Talk (Archives)

Contributions

EditCount

Sandbox

Sandbox2

Awards

Userboxes

Gallery

CSDlog

Subpages

Adminship

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

Re Shroud of Turin. Yes. Its not going well. I just about died laughing at the comment tho. It does sound like he somehow video confferenced from the great beyond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Your addition of "condescending, pro-Obama" was hardly constructive, it was very POV, and unreferenced.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Huggle

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

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)

It didn't give me a warning, it's been bugging on me lately. SparksBoy (Huggle) (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Tired! It's only 1:20am here... :-)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Yo,

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

see WP:RFA  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

As you wish  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

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

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

• News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
• In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Thanks!

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Maybe. The page didn't look that bad - a cleanup and some refs might have made a suiable page

Hey

Who r u

Don't make me call admin

U my postings NO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceo7 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you run that past me again in normal English. Thanks.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page so quickly Barret (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sometimes it can be just luck which pages show on my WP:HG.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:ChrisTheDude page

DINT DO NUFFIN M8 Y U HAVIN A GO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.16.159 (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You deleted a user page, that is not nothing.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Chelsea FC

Chelsea Football Club is not a subject entirely related to Britain. They have a global fanbase and play football throughout the world in places such as Spain, Bulgaria and the United States. Therefore, I don't think the British version of English should be strictly adhered to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.77.106 (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but Chelsea is a British club. Their home ground is in south London. They may play away, but that does not make them any less British. Therefore the article should be in British English.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 11:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The implication was clear.

My update was entirely neutral in viewpoint. Beck mentioned Bauer replacing someone in the White House. The obvious implication is Gregory Craig, White House Counsel, even if it isn't true. That's what Beck was implying. There have been rumors of his departure and Bauer happens to be the President's personal lawyer. White House Counsel is an obvious fit. 71.174.40.116 (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Kman

It might be an obvious implication, but you cannot put that in a WP:BLP article. All data must be correctly referenced. If you can find a verifiable source that says that, then you could add it in and quote the source.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The previous line in the page doesn't have a verifiable source, yet there it sits.71.174.40.116 (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Kman

True, and you could delete it for that reason if you wish. But that line just says he might have a new job - it does not mention what job, or who might be replaced - and that data might upset that person and it might not even be true.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

Sorry, Im very new to Wiki, so I tend to make things worse. And the Shroud article is pretty messed up even by my standards. I do realize that suggesting a video conference from the great beyond isn't going to make it sound more encyclopedia like. I hope you removed that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 00:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. I'm sure you'll get there in the end.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not vandal

I am lost and alone and looking for soup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.229 (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal insults to another user is against policy - see WP:ATTACK  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry i don't speek spanish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.229 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm there is no Spanish on that page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Barry Seal

The information on barry seal page is not accurrate.

I was going to source all this work I was doing as I was in the middle of working on the page.

Now all that work is lost. Why did you do this when i was in the middle of working on the page.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.122.24 (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is lost - You can view the old page in the history. WP:BLP articles must have references to support the data at the time that the data is added - you cannot add paragraphs (especially anything negative) and get round to the references later - someone will always revert the page if you do.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Vlachs of Serbia

Who has right to present Serbian Vlachs as Romanians?! They have their national name, culture, tradition - identity and they are recognized by the Serbian Constitution an Law as Vlachs (Vlasi). The other ethnic group in Serbia are Romanians. Iin Serbia everyone is free to declare whatever nationality it choose in census. SERBIA - Census 2002: Vlachs: 40.054; Romanians: 34.576. So, who gave right to itself to not respect these facts?! This is the act of basic rudeness! VLACHS ARE VLACHS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.114.197 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You were politely asked by User:Dc76 in the edit summary of his revert of 22:30, 26 October 2009 "please, do discuss such radical changes in the talk page beforehead", as you do not wish to discuss it there, then you should not be surprised at any subsequent reverting.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

HEY WASSAP MAN