User talk:MartinRe/PreFeb06

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello MartinRe/PreFeb06, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

some General guidance.
Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
Use the Show preview button
Provide an Edit summary
Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
Take a look at Consensus of standards
Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, -- Alf ^melmac 14:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the welcome message, haven't replied before as unsure if required a reply, but as I am editing this page anyway, thought I'd better include a reply to this, just in case! cheers, MartinRe 20:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No reply needed, but nice to have one anyway! --Alf ^melmac 12:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Payplan

Hi Brookie here - thanks for the note; I followed the link through to the Payplan site - and it does look like a commercial organisation - if it was a not-for-profit company then a link would be acceptable - but this doesn't look like that - the copyright notice on the bottom of the page says it is a dividion of some company - confirming my thoughts. Sorry - I don't think it should be there. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 13:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the reply (I'm replying here to try and keep things in one place). If you look at how payplan is funded [1] it doesn't take money from clients, it relies on contributions, so I don't think it can be regarded as for profit. It's one of two free debt management services, the other being the charity CCCS [2]. I'm a regular reader of the Dealing with debt board on the motley fool, and all indications from there are that both work by getting the debtor to list income/expenditure, working out what's left over for debts and dividing it pro rata among the debtors, only acting as an intermediary (i.e. all creditors contact payplan, not debtor directly). Yes, payplan is funded by the credit industry, (hardly the most altrustic of people :) but I've never seen anything to indicate that they act other than in the best interests of the people in debt. Between the two, (cccs and payplan) the latter seems to be be better known. MartinRe 14:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MartinRe for the note - I ahd seen your post and was just keeping my powder dry - someone else has posted on my talk page saying it is a commercial site! Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 10:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that. Is there any general place were we could move the discussion to try and get a general consesus on it? My feeling is that it might be technically commerical, but non-profit, and regardless of status is a useful resourse to have linked. After all, being commerical doesn't necessarily mean we can't link to it. Another alternative would be transfer the basic info across. Or is there a page describing debt management companies in general? MartinRe 10:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could try emailing them and asking what kind of organisation they are - or look it up at companies house - not for profit companies are usuually limited by guarantee rather than by shares. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 17:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never thought of companies house, had a quick look, PayPlan limited listed as a PLC, nature of business marked as "7499 - Non-trading company" (full list[3]) MartinRe 17:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See post to my user page:

Hello Again Brookie

I have just been reading the latest thread regarding the commercial status of Payplan. Payplan are not a non profit making organisation and are part of Totemic Ltd. Totemic also own a commercial mortgage broking business amongst others.

(see: [4])

True not for profits operating in the the free debt advice arena include Consumer Credit Counselling Service [5] , Christians Against Poverty [6], Advice UK [7], Myvesta UK ([8]and Citizens Advice [9]

Payplan were for many years called Federated Credit Limited (Shaws Insolvency) and exist on a commercial basis by providing Individual Voluntary Arrangements and dealing in corporate insolvency matters for Ltd companies.

They also offer a debt mangagement plan service where they receive a 9% (ish) debt recovery fee from contributing creditors similar to the way that commercial debt collection firms are remunerated.

Payplan deal with unsecured creditors only and as I understand do not get involved with the direct management and intervention with priority creditors (such as council tax, magistrates court fines etc - the difficult stuff!) as is the case with the CAB for example.

Regards

Sean

Dia Duit

Hi there, and welcome to the nuthouse that is Wikipedia! If you're ever short of a few subjects to do, we'd be more than happy to see you at Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board. There's not that many of us, and we need all the help and opinions we can get. Cheers!Fergananim 21:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contact?

Hi, MartinRe. I have a question regarding a recent edit you made. Would you name some way to contact you on your user page? Or should this not be done because of some wikipedia policy unknown to me, or should I remove your contribution and put something on the article's talk page? Or should I get a wikipedia name because otherwise questions such as these will not be taken seriously? I still see myself more as a reader than a contributor and am unsure if I really need to register with this site. 85.182.0.95 01:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask me here, that's what user talk pages are for :) Or if it's about a particular article, you can add a comment on its talk page. (articles (with their talk pages) are automatically added to my watch list when I edit them for this reason)

If you feel an edit is better removed, you're welcome to remove it (or see if can be improved). I believe it's customary to put a reason in either the edit summmary or the talk page (if it needs a fuller explaination). Sometimes I just add a section in the article talk section questioning the edit without changing the article itself, that way you get a wider view of more than just you and the other editor. I don't have any hard and fast rules, just gut feeling at the time.

If the problem is an edit I made that didn't seem to have a good explaination (like above) please point it out. I do try to include a reason for all edits, with the exception of reverting obvious vandalism, (when I put in rvv). I hope I haven't put in that explaination when reverting a good edit!

WP:WHY explains better than I can the benefits of having an account, but it's not required. Questions are taken seriously, but not having an account makes it difficult to get replys. For example, I don't know if your ip address is dynamic or not, if I reply on your talk page, you may next connect with a different one, and not see it at all. (I'll add a note on your user page just in case) MartinRe 09:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. See Night Watch (novel) for my criticism. A matter of minor importance but I care for the book (and strangely found to care for the wiki-page in recent weeks). Strange, when you come to think about it... 85.182.9.134 12:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Kelly Preston Article

Hello.

Thank you for your message regarding my revert of the Kelly Preston article. I did not object (per se) to anything within the article. The last edit made by 67.68.137.217 was not correct (I won't go so far as to call it vadalsim).

I actually, have no excuse for reverting back as far as I did and was actually not aware that I done that. I think I must of 'flashed' while I was looking back through the edits.

I apologize for dropping your legit edits.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

No worries, it happens :)

Not sure what the incorrect edit you're referring to is. 67.68.137.217 seemed to update the names so they're not red links and put in the full name of the daughter (I verified both names were correct on imdb). I left a note on the talk page about the edit that I didn't put back in, as I can't verify it myself in case someone does verify it and wants to re-edit to add it again. MartinRe 23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dia Dhuit

Yes, Martin, you are right, and the response is "Dia is Mhuire Dhuit." I'm Irish, but my spelling in all languages often leaves something to be desired. Cheers! Fergananim 20:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the speedy delete

uh, the problem is that you left it on the article namespace, and in the wrong page too. All userpage have the title User: infront of the page. For example, you left comment in Talk:Ninorc (which is in the article namespace), which should of been User_talk:Ninorc. Try to becareful next time. Thanks. --Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 00:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:My RFA

I do not have a desire to always have the last word. I should not of replied to every oppose vote, you are right. --A dam1213 Talk + 02:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Thanks for your input, but I've given up trying to talk to DreamGuy. The article isn't worth it to me. There are plenty of other articles out there where I don't have to take crap from psychos, so I just dropped it. I should have removed my request for opinion, because it doesn't matter whether it's me or you or anyone else, he's not going to stop reverting everyone else's contributions. He can have "his" article. I don't want you to go through any undue hassle on my part. Thanks again for trying, though. Kafziel 15:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for the note. I hope I've stayed cool in my responses in the talk page, but I don't intend to keep debating it. I just popped in to add a third opinion in the hope that it would be of some use. MartinRe 16:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rf3O for Star Sonata

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I've been having a hard time with this malcontent and I hope your will assist in defusing the situation. If the ano-editor continues to revert changes what are my avenues of action? Mediation? Or should I go directly to arbitration? Or is there some kind of rule that is being violated that an admin could ban for having broken? (Signed: J.Smith) 21:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm newish here, so I don't know the procedures available, but best thing is to try and sort it out on the discussion page. The problem is that revert wars are more likely on an articles that have a slant, so you should try to be as neutral as possible, avoiding uncitied claims and opinions. Unfortunately, the article as it stands has several examples of both, which need to be fixed. I'd suggest either finding references for the claims, or if you can't, remove them. Adding more uncited claims (like your last edit) won't help! I'll be keeping an eye on the article, so any replies should do there, please. Cheers, MartinRe 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Warning templates

Hello. Doesn't giving multiple levels of warning in the same edit defeat the point of having multiple warning levels? I see you gave a user a test, test2, test3 and test4 warning, all in one go. I believe the correct way to warn is to give one level of warning, if they re-offend after the warning, give next level of warning, and so on, as per Wikipedia:Vandalism Yes, I know that can be hard to do when it looks like obvious vandalism, but you have to give everyone a chance. The user in question (Porto Puto) has since been banned for offensive username, out of curiousity, does it translate as something offensive, or is there another context to the words I've missed? Cheers, MartinRe 23:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that move, I know the correct way to warn potential vandals, but this 100%-vandalism user started a mini edit war in that article, just look the history page. By the way, thanks for reverting his changes in my userpage =D, and as far as I know "Porto Puto" means "fu***ng port" in Portuguese. Have a nice day, COA 02:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even 100% vandals deserve the correct process. And the article reverts looked more like content dispute than pure vandalism to me (user page attacks were vandalism, though, but user stopped on first warning) so would be better to warn the user and - more importantly - explain why. I know if I joined a web site, and did something wrong, I would hope someone would tell me why it was wrong instead of just saying "that's wrong" and undoing it. Isn't that the concept behind assuming good faith? Time will tell what the user does when they return from their block, but from what I saw, they were at least open to discussion, repying to messages on their talk page, etc, which is more than can be said for "pure vandals". MartinRe 11:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've left a message at the user talk page (if they return under the same IP address) and on the article talk page pointing them towards the policys and guidelines. We'll see if that makes a difference! MartinRe 11:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The UB is considered a good and serious university, so it's quite rare to see such vandalism in its article... But let's wait, the block is only for 24 hs. --COA 00:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DSA

Thanks for the recent revert, shows I'm not going totally mad! :) MartinRe 23:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. RicDod 19:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Greetings

"I edit pages based upon my own personal bias." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.34.134.48 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Spam

Hi MartinRe. You can ask a meta sysop to add his spam link to the site-wide spam blacklist referenced here under External Link spamming. Monkeyman 18:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the discussion page of the blacklist, there is a section called, "Requests for addition". I believe you would just add his spam site here.

Monkeyman 18:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info, it's good to know. For the moment, I'll see if the IP blocks have any effect, but it's a relief to know there's something else if that fails. I don't really want to add the site without checking with someone who speaks turkish what the advertised site is about. MartinRe 18:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a safe bet to add the site to the blacklist. IP blocks aren't going to do much good since his IP keeps changing. I think it's pretty clear that he's just trying to drive traffic to his site and to improve his rating in search engine ranks.

Monkeyman 18:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

Hello, I've seen you've just marked a few orphan talkpages for speedy deletes that I had missed, thanks :) You've also reverted the same person as I have that's been inserting links to the same web site (e.g. in Çankırı Province) so I was hoping you might do me a favour and give me an idea of what the website it points to is about, as I don't know the language. It was suggested to me that if the user continues to insert the links (and it appears that every edit they make inserts it) that I could ask the sysops to blacklist it, stopping all future edits that contain a link to it. However, that's quite extreme, and I don't want to suggest that without knowing what the website says. Any help would be appreciated, Cheers, MartinRe 00:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This user is also vandalizing tr: and az: wikis. I've encountered that link in several Turkey related provinces and cities articles. Most of them are faking, like [xxx.com About X province], actually its not about what it says. And i removed them all. About web site, i look it again. First of all, the sites heading is "Current Çankırı News", this looks like innocent, but firts of all its in Turkish and currently its now known even in Turkey. Currently, there are a few news about Çankırı. My opinion is, he is a guy trying to promote his web page also there is a link "Reklam ver" "Give advertisement". I hope this helps you. if you want ask any questions, i'll try to help you.--Ugur Basak 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your followup on meta, with the link to az wiki about this. I did look, but must have missed them. MartinRe 20:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to find, i've deleted most of them. I thank you too. Cheers--Ugur Basak 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've found two more on the turkish wiki, I'd remove them myself, but wouldn't know how to explain why in the edit description! [10] [11] are the two IP address that have added links that are still there. Cheers, MartinRe 12:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Martin, our request has been archieved somehow, i add it again also add new evidences meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#More_open_proxy_linkspam. And i've found one more link on de: [12] Thanks for your help.--Ugur Basak 21:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting links

Hi MartinRe, yes I understand the criteria however the I believe that the links are relevent as the relate to common terms that individuals will use Wikipedia as a source of reference. The IVA category would sit better as a sub-set of the Individual Voluntary Arrangement category so I plan to incorporate this. I notice that you had added commercial links in the past (Payplan and a debt questions site link to one of their refering sites?)and we had discussed this via a third party (Brookie)I will look at the deletions and maybe add them back in if I do not agree. I am a money advisor for my job so I have a good understanding of the debt advice industry which is why I monitor the links etc. Best regards Sean

?? I did actually start the categories that you are editing so I dont understand your point about text - I could and will expand as i see fit MartinRe. What I do understand is that I have got better things to do than argue about this with you. The change you made to the IVA abbreviation is fine so far a I am concerned MartinRe so I do not plan to change this back. Let us agree to disagree on the Payplan links shall we?

Hey MartinRe - no worries and I take your point. I do plan to expand the text shortly so hopefully we can offer sufers more choice as to how they digest the information. Kind regards, Sean

Hi, MartinRe yes they do so it is a good source (I often advise clients to view the video clips as they are, for a lot of people, a more interesting way of absorbing the information at leisure) Are you an IFA or in another financial field if you dont mind me asking? Not a lot of people seem to be interested in good debt advice until they actually need it ! lol Regards Sean

A lot easier said than done for many people that I see I am afraid. One of the worst things that I am dealing with these days are these 125% of house value secured loans (First Plus et al) They often leave us little room to negotiate. We expect to see secured credit cards soon too. It makes me laugh when I see the adverts for such products on the TV which all seem to propote the premise that the best way for indebted individuals to get out of debt is by taking out a secured loan! Hey ho, I am signing off for the day now. Best regards Sean

CSA To Do List

Sorry about that. I thought it was an article. I removed the db tag. --SeanMcG 00:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Retro Ball

Hi Martin - Thanks for all your help on this (and my other articles). I seem to be getting the hang of things now and my other two pages have been accepted. Your advice has been very constructive, especially the bit about creating the article outside of Wiki first!!ConsolePassion 16:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy

Thanks I Will use {{delete| Reason }} from now on

Child Support Agency

I had a look at the article as per your nomination on WP:AID, and did a bit of copyediting (though I don't believe my edits were particularly great) and to be honest the article seems ok to me. What specifically do you think should be expanded/added? Obviously there is general improvement that could be done (when isn't there!) but I think there are far more needy topics listed at that page. Try listing it for Peer Review if you're worried about it? Great work on the article by the way! Jdcooper 12:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Souness pics

Thanks for the note. I believe everything is in order. Next time I have a similar situation, I'll use a different file name to avoid the confusion. Thanks again. BrownCow  (how now?) 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Info

Re: Restoring Deleted Pages - Village Pump

That was really fast. Appreciate it. ^Talk - The Invisible Anon 18:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]