User talk:Codf1977: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:01, 5 February 2010

Welcome!

Hello, Codf1977, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! [[User:Bejinhan|<font color= 12:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kesgrave Hall School

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia - regarding your edit to Kesgrave Hall (at 16:11 on 6/8/09) - I have concerns with regards to the relevance of some of the paragraph. I am minded to think it may not be relevant but before the edit is changed or edited, I wish to give you an opportunity to give your input as to why you think it is. Mrodgers2099 (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question; It is all relevant for the following reasons :-

FACT He was at the school. FACT He is notable. FACT He uses his blog to discuss his time at the school FACT People reading the page need to know that he and his views are not mainstream and should take the page with a truck load of salt.

And if You, IndigoJo, 90.205.104.2 or anyone else removes my section or edits it so as to change its meaning then I will put it back again.

Codf1977 (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kesgrave Hall. 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. If that proves 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. Please see Kesgrave Hall Talk Mrodgers2099 (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, everything I've written on the page is factual and is about the history of the building and the school. Much of it has nothing to do with KHS anyway and I have no reason to lie about anything which happened before or after the existence of KHS, such as who owned the building in the 19th century or indeed this century; I only state facts which are verifiable. As for KHS, I also stated facts. If I want to have a go at the school or its pupils or teachers I do so on my own blog and not on the KH page here. I did state that someone had been done for sexual abuse at KHS (long before I was there), which is a verifiable fact. None of this has anything to do with my views about religion or politics or who supposedly "despises" me for those reasons. If this keeps up then the Wikipedia management will have to rule on it and I suspect that they will not take your side as what you have posted is completely irrelevant to the subject matter, which is the history of Kesgrave Hall. --IndigoJo (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about the relevance of a paragraph added by Codf1977 to the Kesgrave Hall School (1976 - 1973) section of the Kesgrave Hall page has been moved to Talk:Kesgrave Hall School following a section split. Please continue discussion here.

As some one who has edited the Kesgrave Hall School page, can I have your help on a number of issues relating to the page. I have posted to the Talk page. Mrodgers2099 (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say that I accept I made a mistake in marking the change as minor, apologies for an unintended slip because I was in 'clean-up' mode. Including the religious and political views of a former pupil undermines the assertion that "everything ... written on the page is ... about the history of the building and the school". I'm not disputing that it is factual, just that it's not relevant to an article on the school. Anyone interested in who he is and what informs his views can follow the wikilink to the page on him. To keep it in unfortunately starts look personal, something not appropriate or encyclopedic. Greyskinnedboy Talk 01:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Yusuf Smith

Hi. I can see that you re-added Smith to List of converts to Islam, only to have the entry removed again by another editor. Though I cannot speak for the other editor, I can point out a problem with your entry. This time you had a Wikilink on Smith's name, but it pointed to User:IndigoJo, and links from "article space" to "user space" are frowned upon in the guidelines for linking. To summarize: he cannot be listed without a proper Wikipedia article, which in turn demonstrates notability of the person using reliable sources. Favonian (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islam for uk

Thanks for letting me know, no worries, a bit of tit for tat editing, thats all, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool

Hey Cod, thanks, Please take my advice and take the article off your watchlist and go back tomorrow to see how it went, you are better of out of it for tonight, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link

I watched the news but yesterday was unable to find a link on the web, have you got a link to the video? Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't - I was able to get access to it via a saved Sky+ copy Codf1977 (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right thanks. I will have another look around for it later today. Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tags.... don't worry about tags like that, there are irrelevant, it just lets the reader see that wiki editors are in dispute over the content, there is no hurry to remove such things, I find it better to just leave then and after a while ask the person that added it if he is happy to now remove it, if not then no big deal just ignore it, well that is my opinion for what it is worth. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Choudary

I still think 'Prior to...' is clutter. 'It was led by...' - are there really BLP issues with the past tense? Rothorpe (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but to me it sounds over-cautious and pedantic. The past tense avoids any problems with BLP issues. (I nearly put BNP issues, hehe...) Rothorpe (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LSE

I deleted that guy's name as a LSE nbobel prize winner.. a vandal put in there. Is this okay? ... Oh you've replied already! haha.. internets are fast!

SB dates

Thanks for your note, details here. Rich Farmbrough 10:54 2 February 2010 (UTC).

im not a ex-debater. i plan on debating in college. but i will definitly look to find sites. most resources are only accesable to debaters so ill look in to someFirl21 (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 ==SB dates==
 Thanks for your note, details [[User talk:SmackBot/January 2010 converted to February 2010|here]]. ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich ]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough| Farmbrough]]'' 10:54 [[2  February]] [[2010]] (UTC).
+im not a ex-debater. i plan on debating in college. but i will definitly look to find sites. most resources are only accesable to debaters so ill look in to some[[User:Firl21|Firl21]] ([[User talk:Firl21|talk]]) 14:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)