User talk:NigelR/Archive3

This is an archive of my talk page.

Portal:Fencing

Thanks for the kudos. Wikipedians who fence... will have to figure out how to do that (unless someone beats me to it!). Cheers! — Twisted86 - Talk - at 09:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Histrionic Personality Disorder

You removed five external links and I found the deletions of 3 of them to be warranted as containing duplicate material or as containing unverified, undocumented assertions. However, the other two are excellent resources, well-referenced, and containing unique information not covered in the article. -I am Kiwi 11:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Page doesn't belong to ME. :o) Already added those two back. Also added note to talk page that they might be helpful in adding cites to the article. It is true that some articles are overloaded with too many outside references. On some pages, they are removed and a link to a people-edited website set of links added. This is often useful for direction to "support sites". I tend to prefer these over direction to just a single forum for otherwise it seems like an endorsement. -I am Kiwi 12:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of ****

How does one archive(?) ones talk page? Dnyhagen 15:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion?

Hi Nigel, what I was wondering what you think about User talk:MarkSG. Basically, I removed some of his links but he added them back, saying that Wikipedia needs more links and that he doesn't make any "ownership distinctions" when adding the links. ―Wmahan . 15:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to clarify this - I added just one link back that had been removed, on the basis that I thought it was directly relevant, and this was subsequently approved by another editor. I haven't made any other changes to reinstate any other material of mine that has been edited or removed, and I don't intend to - I'll let other people be the judge of whether the links are relevent.

On the particular case of the MSA article, I see that you've left one link in place while removing all the others. Could you possibly explain why you consider this link to be more relevent or appropriate than the others? I'm not asking this in order to be argumentative, I'd just like to know a bit more about the rationale for accepting or rejecting links as that will help me understand Wikipedia better as a whole. Thanks. MarkSG 06:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to stop deleting notable content

Other people find this notable! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Exact_Software A month a half is hardly long enough to contribute when the article has been well established --erpguru 01:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So after all the hoopla. . .

You added OTRCat.com and the other link spammers back to Old Time Radio via the dmoz list you added. Congrats. Suspected all along there was a hidden agenda there. Point taken. Don't suppose it occured to you to add this link instead. Curious, no? Three possibly commercial links in this list, and the vast majority of your suggested list clearly commercial. Not a wee teensy bit of naked hypocrisy here? I suspected something like this was the basis for the strenuous insistence on the commercial dmoz link all along. At least you've declared yourself. I'm certain WikiOTR and all of OTRCat's other anonymous ip accounts will feel vindicated after all. Dnyhagen 05:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User NigelR

Its a shame you have removed so much from your user page and say you are going and don't know when you will be back. I for one have found you to be a really good bloke and have found your contributions to be helpful, relevant and valued. Regards. AndrewSE19 07:17, 6 October 2006

Pix

So Nigel can I post pictures on Wikipedia that I took? If so what tags and other stuff do i have to do? Paulm27 02:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikEd

The wikEdlogo

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Often it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Royton

The information I have added to the politics section is fully referenced and accurate. I would appreciate it being left there, since the rise of the BNP in Royton has been the most prominent political shift in Royton over the last thirty years and has even been commented upon on political issue shows. Its removal is censorship since the politics section will then no longer be a true reflection of the political issues in Royton. I will take this to higher authorities if I have to and have your account suspended.

Hi NigelR, just a line to let you know this is one of several IPs of a banned user User:Algol126 (aka User:Filmfan1971 and other account names). He has a long history of making distruptive, pov, and threatening edits, as well as efforts to insert pornographic images on a number of articles. Feel free to contact me for all the evidence should this happen again, and we'll get a block placed upon this account. Jhamez84 13:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Away and no idea how long for - those it was good to know it was good to know

"so long and thanks for all the fish"