User talk:80.176.233.6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Welcome!

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

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (80.176.233.6) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) 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 this page. Again, welcome! Doug.(talk contribs) 12:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

You were tagged as "non confirmed user reverting large amount of changes" this triggered the tag that i then "rolled back", if it was in error i am sorry, i am after all only human, i have read the notice at ANI. Regards ZooPro 07:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

March 2010[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Louis Prima. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Could you please explain why you are removing categories - "the category vandal" doesn't really help? -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
I just said. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#BLPs.2C_ethnic_origin_categories_and_an_IP_hopper.2C_redux. 80.176.233.6 (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Got your message, thanks. Might it be worth adding, say, "see ANI" to your edit summaries, or expanding your reason? As it stands, it could be read as you boasting that you are the category vandal - I've seen similar before. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes[edit]

Hi! I'm something of a propagandist for "pending changes", so I figured I'd drop by and explain when and where it's useful.

It would have been useful in the case you raised at WP:ANI, the vandalism/WP:BLP-violation at Clive Betts. Had pending changes been applied to this article, the offensive edit would not have been seen by the majority of readers (you wouldn't have seen it, for example). Edits made by "non-autoconfirmed editors" (editors who aren't signed in or don't have an account, or new editors with under 10 edits) would have had to have been "accepted" by a "reviewer". Reviewers are able to see such edits, and should - when they encounter them - revert them.

I don't believe pending changes is the panacea many of us hoped for, but it is - in my view - extremely useful on articles like this one, articles that aren't checked that often and where vandalism can remain undetected for some time. I regard this as particularly important when the subject of the article is a living person.

Hope that helps, and don't hesitate to follow this up with me if you need more information or help.

TFOWR 10:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


That's useful to know. Thanks. I think Wikipedia needs this system sooner rather than later and on all articles. 80.176.233.6 (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit]

Thanks for your comments. I think some notes should be made on the talk page to help editors provide a NPOV. A lot of the article is well cited so I dont think it's a whole article problem. Truthmonkey (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

For your maintenance of RfC/U descriptions - keeping them neutral. Wish people would do that to begin with, but alas. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrexham & Shropshire[edit]

Do you have a source for these "reports" of the premature end of the service? Thanks Adambro (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian Wolmar on Radio Wales this morning and on http://twitter.com/#!/christianwolmar/status/30187900737945600 Twitter ] but nothing I can reliably source/provide a link to at the moment. 80.176.233.6 (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow, everything I did, in good faith, reverted with snippy remarks and nasty implications. Last time I try to contribute in this place. Clearly it's a members-only club. Odd it doesn't say that on the front page.
No nastiness intended. I'm grateful for the clarification. As you seem to appreciate, comments on Twitter aren't generally considered a reliable source. In this case the comment on Twitter says "apparently..." so clearly it alone can't be considered reliable. My use of "reports" was an allusion to the fact that the term was somewhat vague, it could have meant anything from "I heard it from a mate" to something that a news organisation has said has happened. Clearly what exactly was meant by "reports" was significant in considering whether it could be considered reliable. I'm sorry if I was a bit blunt in my comments previously. Adambro (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)