User talk:Tmol42

Welcome!

Hello, Tmol42, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Roleplayer 18:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting

It doesn't look like you meant to reply to me here: [1], so would you mind changing the indenting or where you inserted the comment, or could I do it for you, otherwise it may confuse. thanks. John Hayes^talk 11:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks got caught in an edit conflict in the rush to post a comment, have eventually got it right, more of an editor than a blogger as you can see!Tmol42 (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ;) John Hayes^talk 11:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my previous edit

The edit I made in Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C., was an edit of my previous post where I hadn't signed in and did not have my user name attributed to it. Surely, I am able to correct my own contributions? Is that within the Wikipedia rules? (Atouraya (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That may be the case but it was clear when I checked that someone on 81.178.248.233 had also been posting during the sme periods both in the past as well as last night including a separate recent post to Tottenham Hotspur F.C. which was not 'corrected' and there is no way to distinguish a correction from a rougue edit. My comment on your site was polite and as set out in WP guidelines. The correct approach was not to just amend the edit as you did but to explain the situation. Anonymous edits such as those signed under 81.178.248.233 are always treated with more caution, particularly on a site which has been subject to a large number of ad hoc anonymous edits over the last 24 hours following the Carling cup win. In future you should ensure you sign in / sign your contributions. We are all human and make mistakes but its important that you make your edits transparent. : -)

Tmol42 (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Canvassing

Asking someone who clearly shares your viewpoint on a matter can be considered canvassing. If you have sent out a notice on an issue you need to at least record this fact somewhere such as in actual discussion page for the topic in question.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing for more information.

Thanks --Shakehandsman (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completly OTT - 1. neutral request 2. no reference to opinions on issue 3. no evidence of a viewpoint shared or otherwise. but made me smile ;-) Tmol42 (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not OTT in the slightest as I stated it is possible canvasing. It might be a neutral request but given you deleted my edit it is blatantly obvious what your opinion is. Best practice is to at least record who you have contacted regarding an issue, otherwise you do leave yourself open to allegations of canvassing. Additionally you have not even engaged in a discussion of the issue itself yet still took the time to contact others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs) 23:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by Obiwanskywalker

I have recieved a message saying that my contibitutions were vandalism, when I was adding players, their countries and statistics, as the page was maent to be expanded. I would like to know how this contributes as vadalism.

Thanks

Obiwanskywalker

Hi take a look at your edit to List of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. players, it left the page in a bit of a mess to be frank and you added a small amount of incorrect information. I have tied it a bit but it still needs a little more mmaintenance. As you had not corrected it was reverted and a polite message as per WP guidelines was added suggesting you take care with your edits and to use the sandbox if you need to test your edits first. Fine if it was a mistake on your behalf, and we all make errors from time to time, but the message was still appropriate, good luck Tmol42 (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I will try to be a bit more tidy next time. I admit that I did make a mistake or two, and because of that I am sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obiwanskywalker (talk • contribs) 10:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the template for the Ivory Coast, I can not seem to find it, if you respond then I will be able to tidy up the list of tottenham hotspur players page.

Obiwanskywalker (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try using Ivory Coast I think it should work but you need to check the piping ( | ) carefully as it gets lost with the brackets ( {{ ) Also you need to crt the spelling of DZ, good luck Tmol42 (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I have done that now, but have encountered another problem: flag of morroco. what link shouold I use? I have tried: Template:Country data Morroco and Template:Country data Kingdom of Morroco but neither of those seem to work.

--Obiwanskywalker (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for all of you help, I have now finished editing that page. The only link that does not work is the one for the brazillian left back gilberto. It does not seem to like the link, I do not whether this is because a page does not exist or if I am just spelling his name wrong. Get back to me if possible about this. --Obiwanskywalker (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hadn't relised what the criteria for the notable players was, thanks for telling me.

--Obiwanskywalker (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Railway time

A title of UserTmol42/Sandbox1 was a namespace violation so something had to be done. On a brief inspection, it seemed eminently ready to become an article so I have moved it to railway time. In this case I think capitalisation may be appropriate: Railway Time. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You may have caused me some embarressment here I am afraid. I was consulting with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tamil Nadu on potentially moving this to that site but this required breaking the exisitng redirections. I may have violated some wiki guideline inadvertently having thought I had only adopted a similar approach to other editors but a check with me first might have meant i could have rectified the situation. In my view this was just a first stab at the article and I was looking to do some checking on text and references first. Please can you advise how we can reverse this and locate my draft somewhere where i can work on it and await advice from the project team, Thanks Tmol42 (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need for you to be embarrassed - just blame it on me! The material covered by your article seems perfectly correct for the railway time title. There was little justification for redirecting to Madras time. I have seem the feeling expressed that articles should be moved into the article namespace as soon as possible because Wikipedia is collaborative. If you insist on continuing to sandbox it, then you can move it back to User:Tmol42/Sandbox1 yourself. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My boat race edit

Thank you for not taking any further action because I do believe someone else, who has been vandalising Wikipedia, has the same IP address as me or something. However, the edit to the boat race was mad by me and i don't see why it is viewed as vandalism; all i did was change the format of the latest result to be consistent with that of previous results (i.e. Oxford wins are highlighted in dark blue) --212.120.248.142 (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see now what I did. Let me assure you it was an accident and not vandalism. --212.120.248.142 (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cholesbury

Hi. You might want to check the diff of Talk:Cholesbury, where you will find I didn't rate the article, contrary to your rather brisk claims (WP:AGF?). I'm not going to get involved in any length of conversation with you, but you need to make sure that what you're accusing someone of is what they actually done. Also, please don't mess up my talk page by placing your note at a level 3 header, just use the [+] button to add a new comment, have the courtesy to leave a summary with your edit, and use the preview button to avoid making repeated edits. Severo^TC 22:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was a little sharp there. I've just had a few people lately ask me to explain something I haven't done! Severo^TC 22:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessment

I'm afraid I know nothing about article assessment. I would bring this up at the project's talk page. -- Roleplayer (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El Tel

Hey Tmol42, I've reverted the most recent IP edit. As far as I'm concerned, there's no verifiable evidence provided in that link and we shouldn't have to pay to see the links. It's tough because there's potential for the source to be reliable, for sure, but it can't be verified without payment which, in my opinion, makes it fail verifiability. Indeed, if this is significant then there should be a suitable, free alternative to verify the claim. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive long lists‎ discussion

Hello, I noticed that you took part in the recent FLRC for List of Arsenal F.C. players and thought you might be interested in participating in a new discussion. The FLRC was closed as no consensus and it is clear the the issue of incompleteness in longer FLs is not over, so a discussion page has been started here. Please feel free to comment. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Season 2007-08

For the stats on the main Spurs page, Yeah I do feel that they would be better on the season page, since they are for the 2007-08 season, and it would be good to have all that information on the same place...about the commentary, because this is the first 'live' season paage and it was made more than half way through, I think people just continued listing the news on the main page out of habit so the duplication happen, I think when next season comes around and the season page is there from the start, I think the separation between detail and brief will come about naturally and if not, then it can talked about at the beginning of next season...I don't think the 2008-09 page can made now, because although the big news of modric signing it would still be a page of empty headings right now you know but not long after the season ends it could take shape...so about immediate matter, Yeah I agree that the stats should be on the season page, thanks, Prem4eva (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polyphosphate edit

I noticed you removed my polyphosphate section addition on the abiogenesis page. Why? Is it improper to link to a book so that people can read the actual model in detail? Should I have put a reference to the book with no link (title, year, etc)? Others seem to link to web pages of books and papers. What might I do to make it acceptable (in your opinion)? The abiogenesis page is in pretty sorry shape in my opinion. Another paragraph on polyphosphate and its possible role in abiogenesis seems more than justified.

Also, what is your expertise in polyphosphate and abiogenesis? Polyp2 (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]