User talk:Rholton

For older content, see:

• User talk:Rholton\archive01
• User talk:Rholton\archive02
• User talk:Rholton\archive03

Are you anti-Catholic?

I noticed you recently deleted an article about an anti-Pope in the Catholic Church. I was wondering if it was because of any anti-Catholic sentiments that you might have? If not, I do apologize. (posted by user:RichardMarcJ 22:30, February 11, 2006)

No. I am not anti-Catholic. I don't recall the particular article in question, but I don't delete articles based on my personal beliefs anyway. If I deleted the article without an AFD vote, it must have appeared to me to meet the criteria for speedy deletion. -Rholton 00:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A simple CMS

Hi Rholton, I read your question about a CMS for your community. I spent many months last year going into the available open source systems, and there are two which attracted me the most:

[CMSimple] - really simple, with most of the commonly required plugin functions available.

[Joomla] - more versatile but much more to learn and "administrate". Can be kept very basic, or expanded to a large commercial size undertaking. You will probably find templates that suit your purpose, ready-made, and there is an enthusiastic and helpful (and very large!) support community.

Joomla can do streaming audio/video, I'm not sure about CMSimple. If you are looking to expend in the future, Joomla would be my recommendation, but it has a longer learning curve than CMSimple. I hope this helps --Seejyb 22:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Pavlos Hatzipantelidis

Thanks with that. DGX 02:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

deletion

Mr. Rholton,

I found the section above about reversion titled FELA KUTI appropriate to my situation where you deleted my new article on Alan Scott Kaufman. The deletion was done so quickly you couldn't have had time to read any articles referenced therein. Surely you could have discussed with me any concerns or offered advice before the instant deletion.

AlanSKaufman 01:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Could I echo this with regards to William O. Eareckson. You allowed a grand total of 4 yes FOUR minutes from my creating the article to putting on a speedy deletion notice. This is not reasonable. Nickhk 01:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dylan Services

  Thanks for the hint to use my user page to develop the content.
  User:Pet-ro/Dylan Service Framework

  (Oh:  I now understand the move command in the wiki better )

  If you like you can delet the old page Dylan services.
  Maybe I in the next time publish this a subpage of Dylan programming languages.

  Greetings, pet-ro

thanks

for fixing the bold title on special needs. Hello as well. cpswarrior 04:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

National Myth. Thanks

Thanks for National Myth correction. vkvora 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

re:your vandalism in Plymouth Brethren article

I spend many time and money,adding needed citations and sources there,and you deleted it?. How an article must to be written according you?. If it hadn`t sources you delete it,if it is original reaserach you claims Wikipedia is no the place for it;if it had links you call it excessives and delete it. Stop now your vandalism or you will be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliecer (talk • contribs)

Misspelling redirects

Hi, I just wanted to say nice work fixing the links to redirects from misspellings. Keep it up! Wmahan. 02:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Fondón

Will you add {{R from alternate name}} to these redirects? User:Emijrp/Almería User:Emijrp/Cádiz User:Emijrp/Huelva, I think that it is unnecessary. --Emijrp 06:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean that in those tables there are a lot of redirects, then why to put {{R from alternate name}} in Fondón, Spain and not in Serón, Spain, Vélez-Blanco, Spain, and many many more....? --Emijrp 12:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is that, "will someone use that huge categories?" I'm not sure, but happy job!. I have seen that articles in Category:Redirects to Wiktionary dont use {wi} template, then it counts as a valid article. What about this? --Emijrp 12:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

When an article uses more than one line, it is a real article, then {NUMBEROFARTICLES} rises. All that articles with {subst:wi} template is overloading that variable, do you understand? It's a small problem, but if those articles are going to stay in Wikipedia, they must use {wi} and not {subst:wi}. Cheers. --Emijrp 15:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

my name

The guidelines suggest a note sent to me first, explaining the cause for your alarm at my handle, unless of course it's just plain obvious, I guess. I think you are mistaken, and could take a moment to exaplain, but you need to voice some specific cause for offense. "Sounds like something offensive" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid, but if you have a bone to pick with category theory, for example, I'm interested to hear it! :) happy regulating. MotherFunctor 09:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not Vandlism

I'm sorry I reverted an edit that was not vandalism but did not help the page either. I probably saw it using VandalProof and did not want to go through the hassle of reverting it manually. I guess I'll log it as a mistake.Gdo01 15:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ..

.. for your endorsement of my Board candidacy. I especially appreciate your comment, though I must confess that I don't remember what we disagreed about in the past.--Eloquence* 09:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We disagreed over whether a particular image of Nick Berg's execution should appear on the Main Page, or rather, over how we should determine when such images should appear. This was a mailing list conversation. Unless I've got you confused with someone else, in which case maybe you'd better not say...;) –RHolton≡– 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It does sound like the kind of thing I would comment on, though I'm slightly worried my position today might be completely different ..--Eloquence* 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for proofreading

Thanks for the good job at fixing mistakes in the Vincent van Gogh article. Stumps 17:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference to this article

It is true, even if it is sickening to think about. Hope this clears up everything! Arbiteroftruth 01:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I read that article, and the guy had his you-know-what cut off after he walked into a trap that was set up by some thief. I don't find that comforting either. I think I will spare you the rest of the details. Arbiteroftruth 04:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User Gene Nygaard

Gene Nygaard appears to be on a strange mission to remove all accent marks and other non-English punctuation from Wikipedia. His behavior seems rather abrasive, too, as can be seen from his talk page. This may explain his seemingly irrational comments in the talk sections of 1181 Lilith and 7796 Jaracimrman. Apparently, he opposes renaming 1181 Lilith simply because he is not getting his way when he wants to rename articles.

Since you are an administrator, could you tell me whether his behavior (which seems more disruptive in other parts of Wikipedia) warrants action by an administrator, and if so, could you please take appropriate actions?

Thank you, George J. Bendo 08:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

BKWSU Discussion

RHolton, thanks for dropping by and I really appreciate you restoring the NPOV tag. It’s a small step towards fairness, but if it survives the night then it will be a significant one, as it will easily be the most substantial edit to do so other than that made by 244 or Talkabout, since I’ve been looking in. I am not best placed to discuss the article content. I am not a member of the BK nor an ex member. However, my support for the NPOV was because others who were qualified to contest the articles content and attempted to do so, where either stonewalled by proven sockpuppets or had their comments removed from the discussion section and their citation requests pulled down. I have supplied detailed links of examples of where I saw this happening, in a 9 point reply to the user Talkabout in the Searchin Man complaint section of the Sept – Oct 2006 discussion archive. searchin man 03:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University"

Posting this here as it's been edited already where I originally placed it on the bkwsu discussion page by 195.82.106.244 searchin man 03:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Mr Holton. It was archived. You also removed my addition. Was this intentional?

I spent some time archiving all the previous discussion, in two lots because it had become so long and mixed up [people posting at the top instead of bottom] and I am asking you allow it to be archived so that we can put the past behind us and start afresh doing exactly what you said we should. Focusing on the topic.

I am sorry but what both contributors did was continue on the slurs, allegations and non-content related dialogue - which is now fully documented in the archives as per policy. From the copy of what was written, you can see this.

If you can fault the logic of a fresh start - or if you want to remove any elements of the fresh start because they appear conentious, then please do. But give us the fresh - on topic - start.

Thank you, 195.82.106.244 10:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Holton, I chose not to engage in the previous slurs. If you look back at the archives, you will see that I added I think it was close to 25 citations answering all the points that had been raised which had not been addressed, merely buried in the usual slur and allegations which you allow.

They are still archived, here; [1]. There are many references included in the article and discussion pages which he has obviously not checked. I then went back and added another just a few days ago. So if I responded to his slur, a) do you allow that b) does it not present a NPOV/continuation itself?

searchin man states he is not a BK to you and yet elsewhere he states that he has been associated for 5 years and recommended or many people to them, his upset being that a recent recommendee had been put off by this Wiki topic. That would not appear to be honest or unbiased.

I wanted to entirely avoid getting back into that cycle of allegation and counter allegation by archiving all previous discussion but it has to go both ways.

I suggest that you accept any contentious or prejudicial discussion is archived where it is less likely to cause offense, draw the line to the past, and start on a clean slate and that you too join in the discussion page. Thank you. 195.82.106.244 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I checked and the Nine points have nothing to do with actual content.

We are going to have problems Mr Holton because you have admin status to throw around but your opening comments are factually inaccurate. The BKWSU was not founded in 1937, the precursor Om Mandali was. World Renewal Trust followed. The "University" is not a real university and as such not founded, it might be misleading. Additionally, the founder was not Brahma Baba but Shiva Baba. And the citation are clearly available and non-contentious. So caution please if we are to be accurate. 195.82.106.244 18:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Rich, I agree you have used real tact and reserve but I would like you to allow the contentious comments remain in the archive, as they are, and remove the copies on the front discussion. Or I would like the opportunity to respond to them as they are prejudicial and incomplete. If I remove them I am going to be accused.

Folks seem to have got the message and settled down which is positive. I agree to a clean start without any personal digs, do not want to be dug at and agree that "digging" is not the way forward.

Thanks. 195.82.106.244 13:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Holton, This note is regarding the discussion in the Talk page in Brahma Kumaris.

Questions:When a reliable source is requested and it is not offered by the editor of the article, what is an adequate amount of time to wait for a satisfactory reply (reliable source)? what should be the next step after that? Thank you.

avyakt7

Disappearing discussion archive history

I just noticed that all the discussion archives for the BKWSU article from July up to the October have had their histories blanked on 12th Oct 06. Is this normal and acceptable? I wanted to refer to something on the previous discussion but it seems to have disappeared since I first read it.

Thanks Bksimonb 12:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Davy Crockett's Explorer Canoes

Hi. I removed your context tag from Davy Crockett's Explorer Canoes after having completely rewritten the article. I hope that addresses the problem. Disneyfile 00:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WP India

Hi,

If you are interested in assessing article for WikiProject India, please add yourself to the list. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 74

The standards for Interstate Highways can be found at WikiProject Interstate Highways. Abbreviated state names are used in many situations in the US roads projects. In the routeboxes, standardisation is important, and ideally, each junction should be one line in the routebox. On Interstate 95, for example, adding the state name would extend the routebox significantly. Also, in the browse boxes, abbreviated state names are used to keep the browse box size to a minimum, which is particularly necessary when the browse box is at the bottom of the routebox, such is the case on Interstate 66. The abbreviated state names in the external links section (excluding the browse boxes), was an oversight on my part, and for that I apologise. Also, from what I can find, the Manual of Style is not too helpful on state abbreviations, particularly in the abbreviations page. But I would argue that since the junctions in the routebox are listed in more detail further in the article, it's not that big of a deal. --MPD01605 (T / C) 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's hardly a decision for me to make. It would be best to bring it up on the Interstate Highways talk page, and just see what happens. Otherwise, the status quo is going to remain. That's the best I can give. --MPD01605 (T / C) 23:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Rholton/Denis the Carthusian

I noticed that this article has a lot of links leading to it from article-space... is it something that's acceptable to move back to article space? I'm doing article⇒userspace redirect cleanup, and the redirects could potentially be speedy deleted, but if this was a sandbox article that got forgotten, it may be better to move it back to article space? --Interiot 18:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was going to ask the same thing. Since it is derived from the Catholic Encyclopedia, anyone could duplicate the work, and create an article-space version. But why duplicate the effort? Seems it has been there from 2004. There are red links such as Denis of Rykel that need this also. Charles Matthews 10:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure! I have no objection to moving this into the article-space. I created the page back in 2004, and I had no idea it was being redirected to from the article-space (something which seems to have taken place in August of 2006). Of course it needs lots of work, but that's all the more reason to put it somewhere where people will not hesitate to work on it. –RHolton≡– 12:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have now moved the page and fixed the double-redirects. Thanks for the promptings, Interoit and Charles. –RHolton≡– 12:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Pentagrid Converter

Thank you for your comment. It least you give feedback in a mature style, unlike some of the other children.

Do you have a link to the article style you have a problem with, because I can't find it? I B Wright 16:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

commons:User:Rholton

This is to confirm that I am also commons:User:Rholton. –RHolton≡– 05:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)